
FT MEADE 
GenCol 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
















' 






















































































































THE 


CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


The following passage, containing the essence of pure mate- 
rialism, is, singularly enough, seldom commented on by the 
clergy : 

“ I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, 
that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they 
themselves are beasts. For that which befalletli the sons of men 
befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalletli them : as the one dictli, 
so dietli the other ; yea, they have all one breath ; so that a man 
hath no pre-eminence above a beast : for all is vanity. All go 
unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward [ In the Sep- 
tuagint, “If it goeth upward ”], and the spirit of the beast that 
goeth downward to the earth ? Wherefore I perceive that there 
is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his own works ; 
for that is his portion : for who shall bring him to see what shall 
be after him ’—Ecclesiastes hi, 18-22. 




Case Against the Church 


A SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS 
AGAINST CHRISTIANITY. 


“Not giving hoed to Jewish fables.’’— Tit its i, ti. 



NEW YORK : 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, 

139 Eighth Street. 

1876 . 



Copyrighted. 

1S7G. 


C. P. SOMERBY, 

Printer and Electrotype r, 

139 Eighth Street, New York. 


PREFATORY NOTE. 


The object of tliis essay is to present in outline tlie 
arguments against Christianity from the standpoint of 
materialism. These arguments have never, so far as I 
am aware, been collected together in a condensed form. 
The word skeptic implies, to the average church-member, 
the idea of a monster of wickedness, destitute of all 
moral restraint, capable of committing any crime in the 
calendar, and w T lio always recants his opinions upon his 
death-bed. The clergy are at no pains to correct these 
erroneous impressions, and set clearly before the laity 
the points in dispute between the Church and her oppo- 
nents. Indeed, it is not to their interest to do so. I 
have, therefore, thought that an attempt to sum up the 
case on the part of science, w r ould not be amiss at this 
time, when the matter is attracting such general atten- 
tion. Of course, in treating a subject of such magni- 
tude in so limited a space, anything like attention to de- 
tail is impossible. For the latter, the reader is referred 
to the literature of the discussion. This question cannot 
be set at rest by abusing scientific men, or by falling back 
upon a priori assumptions and appeals to the emotions. 
It must be argued , and the victory awaits that party 
which shall produce the most conclusive evidence. 





















































THE 


CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


It is part of the nature of a reasonable being to in- 
quire the causes of the various phenomena, subjective and, 
objective, in the midst of which he has his existence. 
There are two ways by which such a being attempts 
to solve the question, “ Whence the origin and mainte^ 
nance of nature, animate and inanimate % ” These are, 
on the one hand, the appeal to “ inner consciousness,” 
and, on the other, observation and induction. Upon the 
former are based all religious systems ; upon the latter, 
all science. The former is the first to occur to man ' in 
the savage condition, who transfers his moods and pas- 
sions to external nature, and sees in her phenomena the 
actions of a being like himself, only much larger. The 
latter method of thought does not arise until at a later 
stage in man’s intellectual development ; and, being in all 
its workings the exact opposite of its predecessor, the 
struggle between the two for the mastery is hot and bit- 
ter, always resulting, however, in victory for the exact 
method. 

The appeal to consciousness, not resting upon any fixed 
basis, but being guided only by the emotions, we have, 
as a natural result, many different forms of religion. 


8 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUKCH. 


Facts, on tlie other hand, being “ stubborn things,” there 
can be only one science, using the word in its broadest 
sense. 

Long after the importance and utility of the scientific 
method are recognized, the emotional mode of thought 
retains its sway, though much restricted as to territory. 
An inherited tendency to superstition cannot be eradi- 
cated in one or two generations, and it is to this super- 
stitious predilection that religion appeals with tremen- 
dous power. Men (and more especially women) like to 
believe in the mysterious and supernatural. But against 
the phantasies of superstition, the calm deductions of 
exact science are like a broadside of artillery directed at 
the frailest glass. To paraphrase an old proverb, When 
science enters at the door, superstition flies out at the 
window. Obviously, the remedy is, to keep science 
from entering at the door, and this is the policy actually 
pursued. “ The great things of religion,” say its vota- 
ries, “ are beyond the scope of science.” Nothing that 
man can think about is beyond the scope of science. 
And what is theology but an attempt to form a science, 
albeit by unscientific methods, out of these very sub- 
jects ? 

Of the various forms of religion, we are here con- 
cerned with but one — Christianity. Originating in Pal- 
estine, this faith possessed no particular power until it 
assumed a political policy, and allied itself with the Bo- 
man Empire. Pure as are many of its teachings, its 
success is to be attributed rather to force than to the 
high tone of its morality — to the fire at the stake, 
rather than to that of the cloven tongues. Of course, 
there is mixed up with the ethics of Christianity the 
usual amount of absurd mythology which we find in all 


TIIK CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


9 


religious. It follows that between the believers in this 
latter and students of nature there is an intellectual 
war, not always conducted in the most amiable manner 
by the Church. Science has no object but the establish- 
ment of the truth, while the Church stands committed to 
the defense of her system, down to the minutest details, 
even after it is demonstrated to be false. This fact gives 
to science decidedly the advantage. It is my purpose 
here to recapitulate briefly the arguments against the 
Christian religion, or rather against the Christian my- 
thology, in order to define clearly the motives of scien- 
tists for rejecting it as incompatible with reason. 

What, then, is Christianity ? What are its claims 
upon our belief? How are those claims sustained? 

It speaks to us with authority, to begin with. It 
asserts that it was delivered unto man by God himself. 
With such an origin it should stand the most searching 
investigation. It further declares that God is one, yet 
composed of three persons — Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. That God created the universe in five days (in- 
definite periods?), the creation of man occupying the 
sixth. That God thereupon rested the seventh day, and 
has been ever since quiescent, so far as acts of creation 
are concerned. That God placed man in a paradise (a 
Persian term signifying a pleasure-garden), and after- 
ward made woman from one of his ribs. That man 
was created pure, enlightened, and holy, but fell from 
that condition to one of sin and suffering. (Christianity 
does not insist very strofigly upon the literal acceptance 
of the story of the manner in whicli lie fell.) That labor 
and death were entailed upon him as a punishment for 
his disobedience, the earth having previously brought 
forth its fruits without cultivation, and man himself 


10 THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 

having been immortal. That the immediate descend- 
ants of the first man attained to great age, from six to 
nine centuries not being at all uncommon. That God 
the Father, to demonstrate his own power and glory, 
promised to send God the Son upon earth to assume a 
human form, suffer, and die; by Jiis death restoring 
man to the condition from which he fell. That, on ac- 
count of the wickedness of mankind, God destroyed them 
all, with the exception of one family, by a deluge 
which covered the tops of the highest mountains, and, 
after remaining forty days, was dried up by a wind. 
That the family above mentioned, who were saved in an 
ark, repeopled the earth, one of the three sons popula- 
ting Europe, another Asia, and the third Africa. Draper 
pertinently observes that as the existence of America 
was not known at that time, no ancestor was provided 
for it. We are further told that the rainbow was set in 
the heavens as a sign that the flood should never happen 
again. That the postdiluvian race, for some unexplained 
reason, attempted to build a tower as high as heaven, 
which God resenting, confounded their language ; this 
being the reason that all mankind do not speak the 
same tongue. That God particularly favored the de- 
scendants of a man named Jacob, and delivered to them 
his will. That it was to them his Son was to appear. 
That unto them, accordingly, the Son did come, assum- 
ing the form of Jesus of Nazareth. That Jesus was 
born of the Virgin Mary, but of no earthly father. 
That during his life, he worked many miracles, as an 
evidence of his divinity. That having been put to death 
by the Eoman authority, he rose from the dead, and 
ascended visibly into heaven. That by his death he 
delivered mankind from the consequences of the Fall. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUKCH. 


11 


That there is a state of rewards and punishments after 
death for those who accept or refuse the atonement. That 
after the ascension of Jesus, the Holy Ghost came to 
earth, and rested upon the apostles in the shape of 
tongues of fire, the apostles being thus enabled to speak 
all languages without having learned them. That the 
world will finally be destroyed by fire. Previous to 
this, however, all the dead will be raised, and Jesus will 
reappear in the clouds of heaven, and in his proper char- 
acter of God the Son. That a state of happiness for 
the righteous, and of misery for the wicked, will then 
ensue, to endure forever, the apportionment to which 
will take place at a general judgment to occur after 
the resurrection. 

Such, in brief, are the prominent points of Christian- 
ity ; those upon which all sects, with one or two excep- 
tions, are agreed. If we attempt to define the system 
much more closely, we strike upon points of difference 
among Christians themselves, which increase so rapidly 
that we are bewildered, and inclined to think that 
Christianity, instead of being one religion, is at least a 
score. The majority of Christians, however- hold the 
positions I have enumerated. It is for me, therefore, 
to consider these in detail, and determine whether any 
or all arc sufficiently sustained by evidence to command 
the belief of an intelligent, unprejudiced thinker. 

As to its claim to divine origin, all religions have 
made the same assertion. In fact, a religion which was 
confessedly the invention of man would have very few 
followers, and would be of extremely short duration. In 
passing judgment upon this claim, we must be guided 
by our results in regard to the system itself. If we find 
its assertions borne out by proof, that will be evidence 


12 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


in favor of its divine origin. If we are able to disprove 
those assertions — nay, if we can overthrow a single 
one — we must either make God a liar, or admit that the 
origin of Christianity is human. 

As to the nature of God, the Jews were monotheists. 
No such doctrine as that of the Trinity was known to 
them. Nor was it taught in the Christian Church till 
it was brought prominently forward by the See of Alex- 
andria. The idea of a trinity was perfectly familiar to 
the Egyptians, as forming part of their ancient mythol- 
ogy, but had previously found no place in the Christian 
scheme. For our definition of the doctrine, let us resort 
to the Westminster Catechism. That compendium of 
Christian faith tells us that “there are three persons in 
the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and 
these three are one God — the same in substance, equal 
in power and glory.” 

This dogma is, in the first place, extremely illogical. 
If the word person means anything at all, it implies 
distinct individuality. Three persons must be three 
individuals. To say that these three persons are one 
person, and insist upon this as an article of belief, is to 
affront common sense. The endeavors which have been 
made to reconcile it with reason are peculiarly lame. 
A favorite illustration is that of three candles, or sources 
of light. As three candles, it is said, give but one 
•light, so the three persons of the Trinity, though indis- 
tinct, are one God. This is not exactly a parallel 
statement. To make it so, it should be asserted that 
the three candles are one candle. Taking it as it stands, 
however, its premises are false. Three candles do not 
give one light, but three lights. Each casts a shadow 
as if the others were absent, as may easily be proved by 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


13 


trying the experiment. Each maintains a separate and 
distinct individuality. The fate of this illustration 
awaits all others. It is impossible to demonstrate that 
three are one. 

In the second place, this doctrine, which occupies 
such a prominent place in the majority of Christian sects, 
is entirely rejected by others. When it was first pro- 
posed, it met with bitter opposition from Arms of Alex- 
andria. That prelate took the ground that the Son had 
not always existed, “ since it is a necessary condition of 
the filial relation that a father should be older than his 
son.” * Though its author was excommunicated and 
anathematized, the Arian heresy spread and gained 
many supporters. In our own day, the dogma of the 
Trinity is denied by the Unitarians. This sect, however, 
is called unorthodox. If the Unitarians could succeed 
in gaining a majority in the Church, the negative par- 
ticle would quickly disappear from that adjective. 

Accordingly we find that Christianity, while asserting 
that it worships but one God, in reality worships three. 
Christians pray to God the Father, closing their petitions 
with “ for the sake of thy Son.” They also implore 
him to “send his Holy Spirit” upon earth. He is 
moreover spoken of as having “sent” his Son to suffer 
and die. A separate individuality is thus plainly im- 
plied, if not openly confessed. If the Father and Son 
are the same in substance, why pray to the one, appeal- 
ing to his love for the other ? If they are equal in 
power, why not pray directly to the Son ? If the pres- 
ence of the Holy Ghost be desired, why not address the 
request to that person of the Godhead? Yet prayer is 


* Draper’s “ Conflict of Religion and Science,” p. 53. 


14 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


always made to the Father, to whom, throughout the 
entire utterances of the Church, a prominence is ascribed 
which is not awarded to the other members of the Trin- 
ity. He is the chief person in the divine trio. The 
very expressions I have quoted in reference to the 
Father’s “ sending ” the Son or the Spirit, and the com- 
mon phrases, “mission of the Son,” “mission of the 
Spirit,” imply an act of command on the part of the 
Father, and of obedience on that of the other persons of 
the Trinity, which carries with it the idea of the superi- 
ority of the former. A Christian would be shocked at 
the mention of the Son’s “sending” the Father upon 
any mission. God the Father is never spoken of as 
having died upon the cross. Yet if the three persons 
of the Godhead be the same, and one God, it certainly 
would seem as if one of them could not perform any 
act not shared in equally by the others. 

Thus the Church, while accepting the dogma in name, 
repudiates it in fact. It is a mere form of words, for no 
mind ever was, or ever will be, formed, that can grasp 
the idea. It is unthinkable. 

Its divine origin falls to the ground when we follow 
out its history, for we can trace it to its starting-point in 
the second century. The Apostles’ creed, probably the 
oldest confession of Christian faith extant, says,^“I 
believe in God the Father Almighty . . . and 

in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord. ... I 
believe in the Holy Ghost.” Nowhere does it express or 
imply that “these three arc one God.” The human 
authorship of the doctrine is beyond all question. 

Before touching upon the statements of the Church 
regarding the creation and governance of the world, it 
is well that we pause to examine the authority supported 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


15 


by which she takes her position. That authority is the 
Bible. What, then, is the Bible ? Turning to the work 
itself for our answer, we find it to be a collection of 
sixty-six books by different authors and on various sub- 
jects. Some of the books are historical, others poet- 
ical, while others again are collections of moral aphor- 
isms and discourses upon religious subjects. The Church 
claims for these sixty-six books divine origin, and asserts 
that they contain the sum of all truth, physical as well 
as moral. But the books themselves admit that they 
were written by men, each one bearing the name of its 
real or reputed author. The form, therefore, in which 
the Church asserts their divinity is that of inspiration. 
Exactly what inspiration means, I have never found 
any one who could tell. The nearest approach to a 
definition, is the declaration that the authors of the 
Bible wrote under the direction of God. It is an ex- 
planation which in reality explains nothing, but only 
repeats the difficulty in other words. Were these men 
merely machines, writing from an invisible dictation? 
If so, how was this dictation given? And if it was so 
subtle that this question cannot be answered, what proof 
have we that it existed at all ? Here the Church meets 
us with an answer — her great, and, indeed, only reply to 
our last inquiry — Internal Evidence. The work, she 
asserts, is its own proof. In order that this ground may 
be maintained, the Bible should contain nothing that 
can be disproved. It is the object of our present inves- 
tigation to learn if this be so. 

There is one point in reference to the Bible which 
must forcibly strike every one who considers the sub- 
ject. It is, Why do these sixty-six books, written in 
different ages by men of different habits of mind, and in 


16 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


different languages — exactly these and no other — consti- 
tute the Bible ? What man or set of men, possessed the 
discretionary ability to accept certain books as divinely 
inspired, and reject others as of purely human author- 
ship ? And when was this assembling of the Bible 
done ? If at the beginning of the Christian era, why 
has the Bible in all subsequent ages not been the same ? 
Yet the Septuagint version, which was used exclusively 
in Egypt and the East, contains a number of books not 
now recognized as canonical. In regard to even those 
which are common to all editions, manuscripts differ. 
The Codex Vaticanus, the basis of our later versions, 
contains extensive passages not found in the Codex Si- 
naiticus, admitted to be an older manuscript. It was 
not until the Councils of Nice, Laodicea, and, further on, 
that of Trent, that any authoritative utterance proceeded 
from the Church relative to the Bible. The latter 
Council completed what the two former ones had begun. 
The several books were admitted to the Bible by the 
vote of the majority. It is said that the Gospel of Luke 
was carried by one vote. The case, therefore, stands 
thus : God inspired various men to write the books of 
the Bible, but left it to a purely human assemblage to 
determine, centuries later, which books were the pro- 
duct of such inspiration, and which were not. Two 
passing thoughts suggest themselves here : First, God 
seems to have cared very little about the Bible himself, 
or he would have taken better care of it. Secondly, if 
the councils spoken of had voted differently, which they 
were just as likely to do, the sacred canon would not be 
the same as w T e have it at present: now, is there not a 
possibility that mistakes were made — what should have 
been rejected being admitted, and vice versa ? The 


the case against the church. 


17 


only means of escaping this dilemma is the belief in the 
infallibility of the Church. Catholics who accept this 
dogma have already sacrificed their reason, and are not 
amenable to argument; Protestants, who reject it, must 
admit the force of the objection. 

Upon the basis of the Bible, the Church has con- 
structed a scheme of cosmogony, the only drawback to 
which is its utter absurdity. One by one her positions, 
in regard to physical science have been assailed, and one 
by one they have been carried. In not a single instance 
can she point to a victory. To begin at the beginning, 
let us take the subject of the creation of the world and 
its inhabitants. As representing the views of the ex- 
tremists in the Church, I quote from a work entitled 
“The Foundations of History,” by Samuel B. Shieffelin 
(1865). The author is a specimen of a somewhat rara 
avis at this time — a man who openly, and in print, 
maintains the literal accuracy of the Mosaic record. 
Others have endeavored to establish harmony between 
that narrative and certain well-ascertained facts. Ho 
such temporizing measures will suit Mr. ShiefFelin. 
With a lordly supremacy, he waves the facts of science 
to one side, and takes his stand by the record, verbatim 
et literatim. 

On page 21, after stating that the age of the earth can 
be determined only by adding together the ages of the 
Hebrew patriarchs, Mr. Shieffelin finally settles the date 
of creation at 4004 B.C. He then proceeds to state 
that, “In the account of creation we are told very 
plainly that ‘ in six days God created the heavens and 
the earth 5 : not indefinite eras, or periods of time, but 
evenings and mornings, days. For wise reasons the 
Creator took that time ; instead of speaking all things 


18 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


into being in one instant, which he could as easily have 
done. . . . Let us remember this that we may 

c avoid the oppositions of science,* falsely so called.’ 
We must also remember that everything when created 
was immediately complete in itself; trees, animals and 
man, each when made were full grown, full size and 
perfect. Each also having the wonderful faculty of per- 
petuating its species.” Mr. Shieffelin adds, by way of 
reflection upon the above, “ No wonder that at the com- 
pletion of such a work, ‘ the sons of God shouted for 
joy ! ’” Truly, it would have been no wonder had they 
shouted somewhat for astonishment as well. 

Upon the other hand, what says science about the 
creation of the world ? That it never was created at all. 
Science teaches us that there are in space vast masses of 
nebulous matter in a gaseous state. The telescope re- 
veals to us these objects, and that wonderful instrument, 
the spectroscope, unfolds to us their constitution. Given 
such a mass, its particles endowed with mutual attraction 
and repulsion, and what will be the result ? It will be- 
gin to rotate, as the nebula in Canes Yenatici has al- 
ready commenced to do. As the rotation becomes 
faster and faster, and the mass assumes a spheroidal 
form, centrifugal force begins to assert its sway. A ring 
will be thrown off from the whirling nebula. As the 
centrifugal force enlarges that ring more and more, it 
finally becomes unable to retain its form. A break oc- 
curs at the weakest part, its particles collect themselves 
together, and we have a planet revolving about the cen- 
tral mass. All this while the nebula has been losing 
heat. Its atoms are approaching each other more 

* The word yvoodit in II Tim. vi, 20, does not mean science, as 
we now use tlic term, hut knowledge generally. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


19 


closely, and the mass becomes denser and denser. A 
second ring is thrown off, and another planet is the re- 
sult. After a time the central mass has cooled until it 
is much more compact than at first. The rings which it 
then throws off are smaller, friction of the particles and 
diminished momentum preventing the disengagement of 
as large masses as formerly. The interior planets are 
therefore smaller than the exterior. At length the cen- 
tral mass becomes so dense that it will throw off rings 
no longer. It remains, therefore, a sun surrounded by 
a family of planets. These latter bodies, however, have 
not been idle all this time. They have been imitating 
the nebula from which they sprang, throwing off rings 
which become satellites. The outer planets, being the 
larger, and their density being less than that of the 
inner, will have the greatest number of these attendants. 
In this way, science asserts that the solar system was 
formed. But is not this creation? Not at all. Cre- 
ation implies an act, while in this whole process there is 
nothing sudden ; the condition of the nebulous mass at 
any moment being the direct resultant of its condition 
at the previous moment, and not of any arbitrary fiat. 
Moreover, we are led to believe that the system will 
again be resolved into nebula, to undergo anew the pro- 
cess of condensation, as it has been undergone no one 
can say how often already. Science teaches us that this 
rhythmic ebb and flow is infinite, and leads us with irre- 
sistible force to the grand conclusion — the eternity of 
matter. 

So much for the statements on both sides ; now for the 
proofs. What evidence has the Church to offer in sup- 
port of her theory? Nothing but the bare assertion of 
Genesis — a narrative which bears upon its face the marks 


20 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


of its legendary character. A narrative, moreover, 
whose accuracy and very authenticity have been dis- 
proved beyond question by learned men in the Church 
herself. The discussion on the subject of the Pentateuch 
may be found, in a condensed form, in Draper’s “ Conflict 
of Religion and Science,” page 220. It is sufficient here 
to mention among those who have denied its authenticity 
the names of St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Ire- 
nseus, Ilengstenberg, and Colenso. Hupfeld sums up the 
matter thus: “ The discovery that the Pentateuch is put 
together out of various sources, or original documents, 
is beyond all doubt not only one of the most important 
and most pregnant with consequences for the interpre- 
tation of the historical books of the Old Testament, or 
rather for the whole of theology and history, but it is 
also one of the most certain discoveries which have been 
made in the domain of criticism and the history of liter- 
ature. Whatever the anticritical party may bring for- 
ward to the contrary, it will maintain itself, and not ret- 
rograde again through anything, so long as there exists 
such a thing as criticism; and it will not be easy for a 
reader upon the stage of culture on which we stand in 
the present day, if he goes to the examination unpreju- 
diced, and with an uncorrupted power of appreciating 
the truth, to be able to ward off its influence. ”* Apart 
from mere unbacked assertion, is there a single fact in 
nature which tends to prove the Mosaic account of the 
creation ? Not one. 

On the other hand, what has science to offer in sup- 
port of the nebular theory ? The reasons for receiving 
it are numerous and convincing. They are : 


* Draper. Op. cit. p. 224. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


21 


I. The existence of nebulae in different quarters of 
the heavens, in various stages of condensation and ro- 
tation. From the great nebula of Orion to the rings of 
Saturn, we have all the most important steps of the pro- 
cess before our eyes; and the inference is so plain that 
“ he who runs may read.” The nebular theory is written 
in flaming characters upon the very vault of heaven. 

II. The orbits of the planets and satellites are ellipses 
of so slight eccentricity that they are practically cir- 
cular. 

III. All the motions (with one exception) are from 
west to east. This holds good of the rotation of planets 
and satellites upon their axes, of the revolution of 
satellites about their primaries, and of the course of the 
latter around the sun. It is impossible that so many 
coincidences should be the result of chance. Let us 
hear Mr. Proctor upon this subject. In his last lecture 
in New York (1873), he said : “ The actual probabilities 
are great against anything like chance distribution of 
the Solar System, particularly when we remember that 
there are 142 primary and secondary planets, and 
when we take into account their motion alone, each 
circling around the sun in the same direction. The 
chance that one is going in one direction, and the next 
going in the same direction, is only one chance out of 
two ; and the chance that a third would go in the same 
direction is only one chance out of four ; the chance 
that a fourth would go likewise is only one out of eight; 
a fifth, one out of sixteen. So we must go on doubling 
until we find that the chance of 142 planets going round 
in the same direction — I hope you will be patient while 
1 tell you the number — is one in 2,774,800,000,000,000 
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ! ” Truly, a fear- 


22 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


ful odds. We are led irresistibly, therefore, to the con- 
clusion that the Solar System, as it exists to-day, is the 
result of law. But law is inconsistent and irreconcil- 
able with arbitrary, sovereign, personal action. 

IY. The exterior planets are larger than the interior, 
and have more satellites. 

V. The explanation of the rings of Saturn is obvious, 
and is possible upon no other supposition. 

YI. We find the sun composed of materials similar to 
those of which the earth consists, which is evidence in 
favor of their having been originally one body. 

VII. The larger planets rotate more rapidly than the 
smaller ones. 

VIII. The oblateness of the earth and other planets 
shows that they were once in a soft and plastic condition. 

Upon these facts the nebular theory is grounded. 
Opposed to it we have — what ? A mere legend — a 
phantom. Certainly the strongest case is that of 
science. 

But how about life, vegetable and animal ? Shall we 
hold that the immense worlds which unceasingly roll 
about the sun became what they are through the opera- 
tion of law, and yet be forced to accept the theory of 
creation to explain the existence of living things ? Let 
us see about this. Upon the one hand we have the 
statement of the Church, which for convenience I have 
allowed Mr. Shieffelin to represent, to the effect that 
“ everything when created was immediately complete in 
itself ; trees, animals, and man, each when made were 
full grown, full size, and perfect.” 

Upon the other hand, we have the statement of 
science that the same laws which formed the Solar 
System and the Universe, gave rise to all life, animal 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


23 


and vegetable. To get at the root of this matter we 
must commence very far back. Dissolve sal-ammoniac, 
or any other salt, in water, and spread some of the solu- 
tion upon a glass plate. As the water evaporates, the 
salt finally becomes unable to retain the liquid form. 
Its molecules approach one another, drawn by the same 
power which set the chaotic nebula in revolution, and an 
exhibition of polar force takes place truly wonderful to 
the thoughtful mind. A tiny dot makes its appearance 
upon the glass, from which presently shoots forth a thin, 
delicate, needle-like crystal. Another and another such 
crystal grows like magic under the eye, until the entire 
surface is covered with fern-like forms of exquisite 
beauty. Whence this structural power? Was it by 
direct intervention of Almighty God, or in consequence 
of forces inherent in the salt ? No one, not even a 
Christian, would hesitate in his reply to this question. 
Every one would answer that the latter was the correct 
explanation. Now let us take one of these crystals and 
examine it by means of polarized light. We notice cer- 
tain chromatic phenomena. Substitute for the crystal a 
grain of wheat, and effects are produced not differing in 
kind from those in the former case. What is the un- 
avoidable inference ? That the crystal and the grain, 
though composed of different substances, are, since they 
produce like effects upon light-waves, constructed in a 
similar manner, and by the operation of the same 
agency. In the case of the crystal, we have seen that 
this agency is molecular force. Shall we deny it in the 
case of the grain ? 

But let us plant our grain of wheat in the earth. 
Surrounded, then, by materials similar to its own, and 
placed under conditions favorable to their appropriation, 


24 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


inevitable molecular force draws these substances to the 
grain. It sprouts, grows, and produces a living plant. 
To effect this, heat is necessary. Now, heat is motion 
among the constituent particles of a body. Once set in 
motion, the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and 
oxygen, are free to obey the dictates of attractive force. 
Oblige them to remain at rest, and this result is impos- 
sible. Wheat has been taken from Egyptian tombs, 
where it had lain for centuries, and, upon being planted, 
has grown like the seed of last year. Was the grain 
living during all that time ? Will the tiny embryo re- 
tain the principle of life uninjured for two thousand 
years, when the full grown and vigorous plant survives 
but one season ? Or shall we not rather believe that 
the grain of wheat when taken from its long repose, 
was as lifeless as the inert crystal, and that life only re- 
sulted when it was placed under proper conditions, by 
the operation of purely physical force? Yegetable life 
would therefore seem to be a resultant of natural forces, 
rather than a separate and independent principle. But 
how is it in regard to the animal ? Surely here we have 
complexity of organism which requires for explanation 
something more than mere structural energy. Let us 
not be misled here. Complexity is in itself no ground 
for asserting radical difference. Out of the same stone 
of which the rude cromlech is built may be constructed 
the magniticent cathedral, by the same agency — muscu- 
lar force directed by architectural taste. Complexity in 
this case merely implies more extended operation of the 
same factors. Science holds that a similar relation ex- 
ists between the vegetable and the animal. Between 
the oak and man there is an immense difference, discern- 
ible at once ; but between the lower orders of vegeta- 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


25 


ble and the lower orders of animal life the variation is 
so slight that it is often a point of the greatest difficulty 
to determine to which class a specimen belongs. As we 
lose complexity, and approach simplicity, the two orders 
of life approximate more and more closely. But it is 
asserted that the life of a man is vastly higher in the 
scale than that of the lower animals, and that this dis- 
tance constitutes radical difference. Let us examine in- 
to this. Lower a plummet into the sea until it touches 
bottom. Upon drawing it up again, you will probably 
find sticking to it a gelatinous substance. Scrape off a 
a little of this, and examine it under the microscope. 
It will be found to be composed of separate masses of a 
perfectly homogeneous, albuminoid matter. These little 
bodies are protoplasm cells. Moreover, they are living 
animals. Destitute of organs, they nevertheless per- 
form all the functions necessary to the prolongation of 
their existence. They move about without muscles, see 
their prey (sic) without eyes, eat without a mouth, and 
digest without an intestinal canal. When one of them 
travels through the water, it stretches out a portion of 
its jelly-like substance in front, and draws up the rear- 
part; repeating this again and again, the result being a 
slow movement, called from the name of the animal, 
amoeboid. When it becomes aware of its prey, it 
stretches out two portions to serve as arms, literally 
puts itself outside of its food, and for the time being 
becomes all stomach. The nutritive portion of the food 
is absorbed into the substance of the amoeba, and the 
useless part rejected. This latter creature is the simplest 
form of animal life. Nothing but a glutinous particle, 
without organization, or structure of any kind, it pre- 


26 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


serves its existence with as much apparent judgment as 
the most highly educated human being. 

From this tiny dot to man is seemingly an immense 
distance. It is not really, however, as great as it ap- 
pears. Man has a bony skeleton, overlaid with muscles 
which serve to move its various parts. But the muscles 
are not capable of spontaneous action. They must first 
be irritated, and then they contract. This is all they 
can do. The irritation is the result of reflex nervous 
action. How, the nervous system in man (and these re- 
marks apply to all the vertebrate animals) is composed 
of two different substances — a white matter and a gray 
matter. The white matter forms the nerve filaments, 
which serve to transmit impulses, but which of them- 
selves are as inert as the muscles. The gray matter con- 
stitutes he nerve-centers — the brain, and other gan- 
glia. From these the commands are issued which, car- 
ried along the white substance, finally cause the mus- 
cles to contract. Examining the gray matter, what do 
we find ? Large numbers of little albuminous, homo- 
geneous particles — in a word, protoplasm cells. We do 
not find these in the bones, the muscles, or the white 
substance -of the nerve filaments. Let us inspect that 
most delicate organ of special sense, the eye. Em- 
bodied in the retina, without which the eye w r ould be 
blind, we again discover these minute bodies. In a 
word, wherever in an animal we find a seat of self-orig- 
inated impulse, there we find also cells of protoplasm 
similar to those w t c draw from the depths of the sea. 
When these are lacking, those portions of the body are 
inert until acted upon by this marvelous substance. We 
may go further still. If we trace man himself backward 
through intra-uterine life, we find him originate in a lit- 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


27 


tie albuminous, inorganized, yet self-moving particle — a 
protoplasm cell. Truly, protoplasm is, in the words ot 
another, “ the common denominator of life.” The life 
of a man is the sum of the energies ot all the proto- 
plasm cells entering into the construction of his frame. 
Organization is crystallization. Every physician knows 
that the plastic material in the interior of ovarian cysts 
often forms itself into jaw-bones filled with teeth, into 
hair, etc. Such material will as inevitably organize 
under proper conditions, as a solution of a salt will crys- 
tallize under like favorable circumstances. The differ- 
ence between the organic and inorganic world is, like 
every other distinction in nature, one of degree, not of 
kind. There are no sharp lines drawn anywhere. 

Did man, then, originate from the protoplasm cell? 
And if so, in what manner? Science teaches us that it 
was by a process analogous to that by which the Solar 
System arose from the nebula — a process of evolution. 
There were many steps between the little cell and the 
genus described in works of natural history as Homo 
Sapiens. Some of these steps are obliterated, but 
enough remain to point out, like scattered landmarks, 
the path from the past to the present. The theory of 
development enunciated by Darwin and Wallace, and 
further extended by Herbert Spencer (who applies it also 
to the explanation of mental phenomena), marks the 
greatest advance of thought for centuries. My limits 
are too small to give even a hasty resume of the theory. 
A definition of it by Professor Huxley is all I have 
space for. The latter says : 

“ Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis .... is, that all 
the phenomena of organic nature, past and present, re- 
sult from, or are caused by, the interaction of those prop- 


28 THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 

crtics of organic matter which w T e have called Atavism 
(Heredity) and Variability, with the Conditions of 
Existence ; or, in other words — given the existence of 
organic matter, its tendency to transmit its properties, 
and its tendency occasionally to vary ; and lastly, given 
the conditions of existence by which organic matter is 
surrounded — that these put together are the causes of 
the Present and of the Past conditions of Organic 
Nature.”* 

The evidence in favor of these views is manifold. We 
can hardly look about us without discovering fresh 
proof. The theory is “encompassed with so great a 
cloud of witnesses ” that it is accepted by all the promi- 
nent thinkers of to-day. From such a mass of testimony 
I select but one point. It is the existence of rudiment- 
ary organs. We find in man and other animals organs 
which are incapable of being used, but which are the 
analogues of fully developed and useful organs in some 
lower species of beings. Man, for instance, has muscles 
attached to the external ear. These muscles are atro- 
phied, and exsanguine in appearance. Man cannot 
move the ear with them, and no advantage would be 
gained if he could. Upon the creation hypothesis, what 
shall we say of these organs ? That hypothesis asserts 
that everything was made for some wise purpose, and 
declared to be “ very good ” ; yet here are parts of the 
body which, the advocates of creation must admit, were 
evidently made to serve no purpose whatsoever. In the 
apes, however, we find these muscles fully developed, 
and of the greatest use to the animal, enabling him to 
hear the approach of the slightest danger, and thus act- 


* Lectures on tlic Origin of Species, p. 131. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


29 


ing as agents for liis preservation. AVhat is the infer- 
ence ? That there was a time when man, too, needed 
such a means of protection ; when lie, too, in his wild 
state had the power of using these now effete organs; 
and that although they have been transmitted from one 
generation to another, ages of disuse have caused them 
to dwindle into mere rudiments of what they formerly 
were. Is not this the more rational explanation ? There 
are numerous other examples of the same thing — the 
lineae albae of the abdominal rectus muscle, and the cau- 
dal remnant called the coccyx, for instance. Shall we 
deny that all life comes from the protoplasm cell, when 
it is a fact capable of visible demonstration, that every 
individual living being thus originates, passing, during 
its embryonic life, through many of the types which 
science asserts the race to have undergone ? 

So from chaos to cosmos, from the tiny monad up to 
man, science teaches that there is an undivided chain, 
an unbroken series. It is like the spectrum, the extreme 
colors of which stand in vivid contrast, yet shade into 
each other by gradations so delicate that no one can say 
where one color ends and the next begins. 

But a process like this requires time. Millions of 
years must elapse before any marked change is appar- 
ent. Untold ages must pass away before the whole is 
completed. Completed, did I say? Nay, it is never 
finished — it is a succession whose duration is infinite. 

In view of these premises, how fares the assertion of 
the Church that God created the universe in six days 
(which word, I agree with Mr. Shieffelin, does not 
mean indefinite periods), making every living thing at 
once perfect ? Will it bear the calm light of reason ? I 
think not. Moreover, the existence of systems forming 


30 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


in space before onr eyes shows that the Sabbath of rest, 
instead of having been inaugurated six thousand years 
ago, has not yet begun, and nature gives no promise of 
its commencement. 

There is a more moderate party in the Church, which 
endeavors to reconcile Genesis with the inevitable 
truths above enumerated. They have undertaken a 
hopeless task. The two things are absolutely incompa- 
tible both in letter and spirit. If science teaches the 
truth, Genesis must be a fable. But science comes to 
us backed by the strongest, most unimpeachable evi- 
dence, while Genesis is supported by nothing. It has to 
face a set of charges sufficiently well established to 
break down the credibility of any modern work. But 
the Bible, says the Church, is not to be judged by the 
same standard as other books. That is begging the 
question. Its right of immunity from such criticism is 
exactly what the Church has failed to prove. 

But if we dismiss the Mosaic narrative as a fable, it 
carries with it the story of the Fall. The foundation is 
knocked from under the doctrine of the Atonement, and 
the plan of salvation falls to the ground. Let us read 
over the account of the Fall, and see what meaning we 
gather from it. It is found in Genesis iii, and runs in 
this wise: 

“ Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of 
the field which the Lord God had made : and he said 
unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat 
of every tree of the garden ? And the woman said unto 
the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the 
garden ; but of the tree which is in the midst of the 
garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither 
shall ye touch it, lest. ye die. And the serpent said un- 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


31 


to the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth 
know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes 
shall be opened ; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good 
and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was 
good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and 
a tree to be desired to make one wise ; she took of the 
fruit thereof, and did eat ; and gave also unto her hus- 
band with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them 
both were opened, and they knew that they were naked ; 
and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves 
aprons.” Here let us stop for a moment, and rest. If 
this tale formed no part of the sacred canon, but were 
to be exhumed in our own day, there is not an intelligent 
man living, in the Church or out, who would not set it 
down as a legend. Having the warrant of antiquity, 
however, it acquires respectability. The serpent is said 
to be the Devil ; why, it would be difficult to state, as 
the narrative itself nowhere asserts or implies any such 
tiling. Apparently the only reason for making the state- 
ment is an expression in Kev. xii, 9, in which the Evil 
One is spoken of as “ that old serpent.” If, however, 
we grant, for the sake of argument, that such is the 
case, we are involved in a worse perplexity a little further 
on. Let us continue our reading: 

“ And they' heard the voice of the Lord God walk- 
ing (!) in the garden in the cool of the day : and Adam 
and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the 
Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the 
Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where 
art thou ? ” Adam was evidently effectually hidden ! . 

. . u And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Be- 

cause thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cat- 
tle, and above every beast of the field : upon thy belly 


32 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


shalt thou go, and dust slialt tliou eat all the days of thy 
life.” Here we encounter the difficulty referred to 
above. If the serpent was merely a form assumed by the 
Devil, why was a punishment inflicted upon the actual 
animal ? That the reptile here spoken of is a bona fide 
serpent there can be no doubt, from the sentence pro- 
nounced upon him ; which has no meaning whatever if 
applied to the Evil One. The passage quoted suggests 
an inquiry for the curious, and contains an inaccuracy. 
Inquiry — how did the serpent go before lie went upon 
his belly ? Inaccuracy — the serpent does not eat dust. 

Sucli is the story which the Christian Church actually 
expects persons not so low in intellectual condition as 
the Hottentot to believe. Regardless of the degrading 
conception it presents, of Almighty God nearly outwit- 
ted by man, and quite outwitted by the serpent; unmind- 
ful of its inconsistencies, absurdities, and impossibilities; 
blind to the fact that there exists no difference in char- 
acter between this legend and the legends (admitted to 
be such) of “ gentile ” nations ; heedless of all these ob- 
vious truths, the Church makes this story (than which 
the Arabian Rights contains nothing more wild) the ba- 
sis of her religious scheme, and tells us we must receive it 
as the word of God ! After this, who shall attempt to 
set a limit to human credulity? 

The Church, however, is logical in insisting upon the 
retention of this fable. It is necessary that man should 
have fallen, in order that the plan of salvation may have 
a basis upon which to rest. Science teaches us, in oppo- 
sition to this, that so far from man having fallen from a 
higher estate, he has been steadily advancing from a 
lower ; so that whether the story of the Fall be consid- 
ered as allegory or as truthful narration, it is equally un- 


tup: case against the church. 


33 


tenable. It is impossible that any such occurrence 
could ever have taken place. 

In passing from the Fall to the Deluge, I only stop to 
notice the extraordinary length of life to which it is as- 
serted that the patriarchs attained. The veracious his- 
torians seem to have thought that figures were a mere 
bagatelle, so long as they told a big story. Accordingly, 
different editions of the Bible give different ages; all, 
however, large. The Septuagint makes Methuselah live 
until after the Deluge, which inclines us pensively to re- 
flect upon the remarkable swimming powers of the old 
gentleman. It is impossible to write seriously upon this 
subject, the only emotion which it excites being a kind 
of contemptuous wonder that any one should be found 
to believe a thing so utterly preposterous. 

Here, again, the moderate party attempts to explain 
this uncommon longevity by saying that the years spoken 
of are lunar, and not solar. Draper points out, how- 
ever, that this would be making them have children when 
only five or six years old. 

The next great event that claims our attention, in in- 
vestigating the character of the Hebrew legends, is the 
Deluge. I will let Mr. Sliieffelin tell the story, since he 
does it so well, and puts forth the proofs so strongly, 
that I feel my inability to improve upon his account. 
Moreover, as 1 said before, lie is not to be stayed by such 
a trifle as a scientific fact. 

He says that it is probable that small boats had been 
built before the ark, though that vessel is the first one 
spoken of. So far I cordially agree with him. It is ex- 
tremely probable. He draws a graphic picture of the 
ridicule cast upon the work of building this vast struct- 
ure. lie imagines one man saying, a lie (Noah) thinks 


34 : 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUKCH. 


lie is elected to be saved and the r£st of the world is to 
be damned; I am thankful I don’t believe in so unmer- 
ciful a God.” This last is a touch of sarcasm. “ The 
miracle,” proceeds our author, “ of all kinds of animals, 
birds, creeping things, etc., going ‘two and two unto 
Noah into the ark,’ must have caused some to wonder 
for a moment. Some may even have felt a little solemn, 
when all had gone in, with Noah and his wife, and his 
sons, and their wives ; and the Lord had shut him in.” 
All which sensations would have been, under the 
circumstances, highly natural and creditable. After 
describing the beginning of the great rain, and indulg- 
ing in a little flight of fancy regarding the unsuccessful 
application of one of Noah’s carpenters for admission 
into the ark, Mr. Shieflelin goes on to say, “ In forty 
days the water had risen fifteen cubits, or about twenty- 
three feet, above the highest mountains, which would 
be, on an average, a rise of about 700 feet each day.” 
I shall have a word to say about this presently. 

Mr. Shieflelin is very sure that the Deluge took place. 
He says, “ There is no fact in history better attested, 
independent of the word of God, than the flood ; and 
none more universally acknowledged by all nations. 
Many evidences of it exist at the present day. The 
highest mountains, in every part of the earth where 
search has been made, furnish abundant proofs that the 
sea has spread over their summits; shells, skeletons of 
fish and sea monsters, being found on them. The uni- 
versality of the flood is shown by the fact that the 
remains of animals are found buried far from their 
native regions. Elephants, natives of Asia and Africa, 
have been found buried in the midst of England; croc- 
odiles, natives of the Nile, in the heart of Germany; 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


35 


sliell-fisli never known in any but the American seas, 
and also skeletons of whales, in the most inland coun- 
ties of England,” etc. 

The Deluge lasted forty days, and was then dried up 
by a wind. This story could only have originated with a 
people totally ignorant of the laws of the atmosphere, and 
the principles of hydrostatics. Its authors evidently sup- 
posed that rain came de novo from heaven. What are the 
actual facts ? The amount of water on the earth, including 
the aqueous vapor in the atmosphere, is a constant quantity. 
Dain is simply the removal of a portion of this water from 
one part of the earth by evaporation, and its deposition in 
another. In consequence of gravitation, the great body of 
water, which we call the sea, occupies the lowest depres- 
sions of the globe. The rain which falls upon high levels, 
makes its way by water-courses down to the sea-level. In 
situations where it cannot immediately drain away, the 
overplus forms lakes, inland seas, etc. The Deluge must, 
therefore, have been composed of the water which was al- 
ready upon the earth, and the “ situation ” at that time 
must have been as follows : 



In Fig. 1 we have a supposed section of part of 


36 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 



the globe, showing the present condition of things. 
A, B is the sea level, D the sea, and C a lake. Fig. 2 
shows how this locality must have appeared at the 
Deluge, when the rain stayed where it fell, and the 
sea overflowed its banks. A, B, C, D, E indicates the 
position the water assumed under these circum- 
stances. 

A simple inspection of these two diagrams will make 
it clear that a general deluge is impossible so long as it 
is the tendency of water to run down hill. 

It is true that the earth, during the silurian and part 
of the Devonian periods, was under water. That del- 
uge, however, was quite different from the one spoken 
of in the Bible. Instead of lasting only forty days, it 
endured for millions of years. The water did not re- 
cede from the land, but the land rose slowly from the 
water, by a process of attrition and deposit. Successive 
submergences and emergences took place, the result 
being the deposition of one layer of alluvium above 
another. Ages of exposure to atmospheric and chemical 
influences have hardened that alluvium into solid rock, 
which still retains the skeleton relics of the animals and 
plants flourishing at the period of its formation. Mr. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


37 


Shieffelin shows his contempt for, or perhaps ignorance 
of, science in nothing more strongly than in his idea that 
the existence of fossils proves the account of the Flood. 
How the Deluge could not only have buried animals 
and plants hundreds of feet below the surface, but also 
have embedded them in solid stone, it is difficult to 
imagine. 

The manner in which the Flood is said to have abated 
betrays an equal ignorance of natural laws. If such a 
mass of water had been spread over the earth, no wind 
could ever have dried it up. We should expect such a 
story from a primitive people, who, seeing a tubful of 
water dried up by wind, thought there was no limit to 
the powers of the latter in that direction. Let us, how- 
ever, divest ourselves of the idea of gravitation, and 
imagine the existence of Noah’s Deluge. The atmos- 
phere would, as it does now, absorb aqueous vapor up 
to the point of saturation. When that was reached, the 
vapor would be precipitated again as rain. Inasmuch, 
however, as the water covers the entire globe, a shower 
falling on any portion of that liquid w r aste would raise 
the level (if I may use the term) not only of that part, 
but of the whole. We should have a succession of 
showers, but no abatement of the flood. Why does not 
the wind dry the ocean, which covers only a portion of 
the earth ? Wind might have ruffled the surface of the 
Deluge, but could never have caused it to disappear. 

There is usually a foundation of truth to a legend, and 
I admit that an extensive freshet may have given rise to 
that of the Deluge, but it could have been nothing more. 
That it was not universal (which I have shown to be 
ridiculous) can be proved from the record itself. The 
highest mountain in Western Asia is Ararat, upon which 


38 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


the ark is said to have rested. Its height is given in 
Lippincotf s Gazetteer (from which work I also take the 
following figures) at 17,323 feet. The water, says the ac- 
count, rose 23 feet higher, making in all 17,316 feet of 
depth. Now there are about forty peaks in the Hima- 
laya range, whose height exceed 20,000 feet. The 
summit of Kunchainjunga is 28,178, that of Dhawala- 
ghiri 28,000, and that of Shumalari 23,929 feet above 
the sea. Many of the passes in these mountains are 
more than 20,000 feet high. There must, therefore, 
have been dry land more than 3,000 feet above the sur- 
face of the Flood, while some of the mountains towered 
above the watery expanse more than 11,000 feet. This 
is upon the supposition that the above-mentioned sound- 
ing of 23 feet was made exactly over Ararat. But how 
could the voyagers know they were in that spot when 
the sounding was taken ? Even a maritime people 
would have been puzzled to be sure of that; while Noah 
and his family had confessedly lived inland, and knew no 
more of sea-going affairs than they did of the other side 
of the moon. The line would be thrown out anywhere, 
perhaps in a deep valley ; and the assertion that it was 
over a mountain top would be entirely gratuitous. 
Moreover, for the reasons based upon gravitation which 
I have given, the water could never rise to a height of 
17,346 feet, unless it refused to run down hill, which is 
not customary. Of course, a rise to that height on a 
level would be still more unreasonable, since there is 
only water enough upon the earth to reach to the line 
A, B in Fig. 1. 

After the Deluge, the rainbow was given by God as a 
sign that a like catastrophe should never recur. This 
shows the childishness of the whole story. It is equiva- 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


39 


lent to asserting that at this time the properties of re- 
fraction and dispersion by dense media were bestowed 
upon light. But if these phenomena in the case of 
water are the “ sign of promise,” they must be equally 
so when manifested by flint glass. The spectroscope 
must be as much the “ seal of the covenant” as the rain- 
bow. 

I have dwelt upon this story at some length, because 
it is a fair sample of a Bible legend. None of them 
will bear close examination ; but all, when viewed with- 
out prejudice, and from the standpoint of common 
sense, will be found equally absurd. It seems strange 
that people who are undoubtedly shrewd in other re- 
spects, should put confidence in these fables. The ex- 
planation, I believe, may be found in the one-sided 
education to which they have been subjected, and their 
obedience to the priestly mandate, “ Do not hear the 
other side.” 

The question may be asked, “ Where did these stories, 
if they are not true, originate?” That question is now 
being answered. It was from the legendary lore of 
Persia and Assyria that the Jews drew the material for 
these astonishing narrations. The researches of Mr. 
George Smith in Assyria have brought to light many of 
the originals of the Bible legends, inscribed on the 
stone tablets of Nineveh and Babylon. Among these_ 
are the legend of the Deluge and that of the Tower of 
Babel. Now, if the Jewish books were written after 
the Assyrian captivity (and the evidence that this is the 
case is overwhelming), all doubt upon this subject 
should vanish at once. 

Passing over the rest of these stories, therefore, let us 
go on to the prophets. I should stop for one moment, 


40 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


however, to speak of the Decalogue. I often hear the 
opinion expressed that the Ten Commandments must be 
of divine origin for two reasons ; first, because they 
contain the sum of all justice; and secondly, because 
the human mind could never have deduced them unaided. 
Both these reasons are unfounded. The Decalogue 
does not contain all the principles of justice, nor pro- 
scribe every offense, by a great deal. I am aware that 
theological ingenuity, by distorting the text of these 
precepts, has made them apparently cover more ground 
than they really do; but it is only by distortion that 
this result is attained. Thus the seventh command- 
ment is made to forbid not only adultery, but obscene 
language; which is neither expresssed nor implied in 
the text. The reason given is that the latter leads to 
the former, which is untrue in the great majority of 
cases. Even after having undergone, however, this 
process of expansion, the Ten Commandments are ex- 
ceedingly incomplete. 

But while the Decalogue does not summarize all law 
and justice, it does contain one statement which is the 
very incarnation of injustice. This is, that the sins of 
the fathers shall be visited upon the children unto the 
third and fourth generation . A human tribunal which 
should condemn a man to punishment for the crimes of 
his father, would go down to posterity covered with in- 
famy. Yet these words, the expression of the most vin- 
dictive malignity, are calmly attributed to the Almighty, 
of whom it is elsewhere said, “ He doth not afflict wil- 
lingly.” Inconsistencies like this' are too glaring to be 
explained away. 

In answer to the second of the above reasons, it may 
be said that the unaided human mind could conceive 


TIIE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


41 


such a code of laws, because it has done so in many in- 
stances. Exclusive of the hereditary justice clause, the 
precepts of the Decalogue are merely those at which 
every society arrives at an early period in its history. 
Nations who never heard of the Hebrews have founded 
their social system upon the rights of life and property, 
the prohibitions of religions other than their own, and, 
as they advanced somewhat in civilization, upon the sa- 
credness of the family relation, and immunity from libel. 
The tendency of the human mind is always in certain 
definite directions, and hence the principles of justice 
are in all lands and all ages the same, though their mode 
of application may differ. In a primitive code, great 
crimes, which attract attention, would be provided for ; 
while minor offenses, which form nine-tenths of the dis- 
cord between man and man, would not be noticed. This 
is the case with the Decalogue. The refinements 
of law, designed to meet these cases, would not be 
added till at a later period in the history of the growing 
society. 

I now come to speak of the prophets, a subject more 
vitally connected with the Christian religion than most 
of what I have gone over. With the exception of the 
legend of the Fall, all the marvelous stories of the Old 
Testament might be rejected without materially affect- 
ing Christianity. The Church is unwise to carry this 
worse than useless weight. But with the prophets it is 
different. Unless Jesus was a divinely sent personage, 
he could not be what his followers claim, and it is in the 
prophets that the proofs' of this circumstance are said to 
be found. These proofs, Christians tell us, are that his 
advent is foretold, his character and mission described. 
Is this the fact? 


42 


TIIE CASE AGAINST TIIE CHURCH. 


At the present day, we are ignorant of the immediate 
circumstances under which many of the prophecies were 
written. No one can logically affirm, therefore, that 
they do not refer to contemporary events. Bearing this 
in mind, and also noting that none of the prophecies 
mention Jesus by name, to what conclusion are we led? 
Let us see. Suppose an ancient manuscript to be dis- 
covered in our own time, and suppose it is asserted that 
this manuscript contains a prediction of an event which 
has not yet taken place. Suppose, further, that this 
event is said to be the cessation of all vegetable life upon 
the earth. We take the document, and find the so-called 
prophecy to consist of a sentence following naturally 
with what precedes, and which, perhaps, reads thus: 
“ Behold, the land is desolate, neither is there any green 
thing.” A skeptic might say to a believer in the pro- 
phecy : “ You tell me that this sentence refers to the ex- 
tinction of vegetation, but that is only your imaginative 
construction. The sentence itself, so far from specifying 
this meaning, is so indefinite that you cannot logically 
assert that such is its significance. Besides, the words 
would apply perfectly well either to a drought or to a 
visitation of locusts, at the time they were written. Un- 
til, therefore, you can prove that no other meaning than 
the one you hold is possible, I shall believe that some 
such fact as I have mentioned gave rise to this passage. 
This I do not think you can do. It is not enough for 
you to show that the words may bear the interpretation 
you give them; you must demonstrate that they are ca- 
pable of bearing no other. Between a rational and a 
supernatural explanation, I prefer to accept the rational; 
much more when the former suggests itself at once, and 
the latter is exceedingly far-fetched.” 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


43 


This lino of argument applies fully to the prophecies 
of the Old Testament. Many of them obviously refer 
to occurrences mentioned in the record itself, and are in 
the past or present tense. Nay, more: passages which 
were not intended to be prophecies are yet called so by 
the Church. Such, for example, is that in which the 
author of the Twenty-second Psalm, speaking of the 
treatment lie had received at the hands of his enemies, 
says, “They part my garments among them, and cast 
lots upon my vesture.” Nothing but blind misunder- 
standing, or wilful imposture, could ever have erected 
this into a prophecy. It manifestly has reference to a 
contemporary event in the writer’s own experience, not 
to an occurrence far in the future. Yet they tell us that 
it is a prediction of what happened at the crucifixion of 
Jesus, at which time the Homan soldiers divided his gar- 
ments among them. As if that was not the custom of 
those gentry at every execution. 

Another important point, at which I have before 
hinted, is the vagueness of the prophecies. This vitiates 
them for two reasons. In the first place, it is impos- 
sible to state positively that they refer to Jesus, since 
they apply equally well to thousands of other persons. 
In the second place, if they do refer to him, such is 
their indefiniteness that no one would so understand 
them at the time. It would require the occurrence of 
the event to show the meaning of the prophecy. And 
after an evenflias taken place, what is the use of a pre- 
diction ? W e may imagine man acting thus foolishly, 
but that God Almighty should amuse himself by such 
a device passes comprehension. 

The prophets themselves were curious personages. 
They seem to have combined the functions of hermit, 


44 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


monk, and wandering minstrel. Paine* points out very 
clearly that at first the word “ prophesy ” meant to per- 
form upon a musical instrument, and that the prophet 
was at that time a sort of troubadour. Thus, we read 
of a company of prophets prophesying with sackbuts, 
and there are numerous other such allusions. The 
soothsayers were then called seers (I Samuel ix, 9). 
Afterwards, however, the prophets assumed this latter 
office, and the two words came to signify the same thing. 
After the split in the Jewish nation, each party had its 
prophets, who mutually abused each other with a fervor 
worthy of modern Christian charity. Sometimes one 
side came out ahead, and sometimes the other. They 
also had family quarrels among themselves, as in the 
following instance, narrated in I Kings xxii.f 

Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, and Ahab, King of 
Israel, had made common cause together against Syria, 
and were on the eve of the siege of Kamoth-Gilead. 
Before going into battle, however, they sent for a 
number of prophets, to inquire of them what would be 
the event of the engagement, just as others since that 
time have consulted fortune-tellers. The prophets, of 
course, recognizing their own interest, all predicted that 
the King of Syria would be defeated, and Ahab success- 
ful. Jehoshaphat was not quite satisfied with this una- 
nimity. It wore rather too much the air of sycophancy, 
lie, therefore, asked if there were not still another 
prophet of whom they might inquire, to make quite 


* “ Age of Reason/’ Part I. 

f To show more clearly the significance of this and the follow- 
ing narrative, I have put them into modern language. That I 
have in no wise violated the spirit of the original, and very 
slightly even the letter, will be evident upon comparison. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


45 


sure. Aliab answered that there was Micaiali ; “ but,” 
said he, “I hate him, for lie doth not prophesy good 
concerning me, but evil.” “ Indeed,” said Jehoshaphat, 
“ you don’t say so.” Ahab, to show that it was really 
the case, sent for Micaiali, who evidently had a grudge 
against the other prophets, and did not particularly love 
the king. Micaiah came, and Ahab put to him the ques- 
tion, “ Shall we go up to Ramoth-Gilead, or shall we 
forbear?” The prophet at once answered, “Go and 
prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the 
King.” Ahab seems to have been surprised at the un- 
wonted complaisance of Micaiali, and he conjured the 
latter not to deceive him, but to speak the truth. 
Micaiali resented this, as impugning his veracity, and 
accordingly took back his former utterance, and prophe- 
sied an overwhelming defeat. “ I told you so,” said 
Ahab quietly, turning to Jehoshaphat. But Micaiah 
was now in full career, and could not be stopped. He 
must have his fling at the other prophets. So he went 
on to state that in a vision he had heard the Lord ask 
who would persuade Ahab to go to Ramoth-Gilead and 
be killed. A spirit had answered that he would do it. 
The Lord asked him how. The demon replied, by be- 
coming a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets. 
Whereupon the Lord told him to go. Micaiah seems to 
have forgotten that he had at first prophesied the same 
as the rest, and that consequently he included himself in 
this category. Upon this Zedckiah, one of the maligned 
prophets, walked up to Micaiah, slapped his face, and 
asked him, “ How long since the spirit of the Lord left 
me, to manifest itself to you ? ” “ You shall know,” re- 

torted Micaiah, “ when you are a fugitive, in fear for 
your life.” Ahab was killed at Ramoth-Gilead, but no 


46 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


credit is due to Micaiah for the prediction, since lie pro- 
phesied both ways. 

Here was a pleasant state of things ! These “ men of 
Qod,” as they were styled, evidently did not have a very 
high opinion of each other’s pretentions. And I am 
content to take them at their own valuation. 

An instance of the character of another class of their 
utterances occurs a little farther on (II Kings iii). Je- 
horam, the son of Aliab, was King of Israel, and was 
much troubled by the incursions of the King of Moab. 
He, therefore, besought Jehoshaphat to join with him in 
settling this troublesome neighbor. Jehoshaphat con- 
sented, and the two armies took up their march through 
the wilderness of Edom. While in that country the 
water supply gave out, and the army was greatly dis- 
tressed in consequence. In this strait, Jehoshaphat in- 
quired if there were not a prophet to whom they could 
apply for advice, and was told that there was Elisha. 
Elisha was accordingly sent for, and appeared. Seeing 
the King of Israel, however (he himself being of the 
party of Judah), and concluding that that monarch was 
the one who had summoned him, he exclaimed, “ What 
made you send for me ? Go to your own prophets.” 
“Nay,” said Jehoram, “never mind these differences 
now. We are perishing, and shall fall into the hands of 
our enemies.” “ As the Lord livetli,” answered Elisha, 
“ if it were not that I respect the presence of Jehoshaphat, 
King of Judah, I would have nothing to do with you.” 
Having relieved his mind after this fashion, Elisha set to 
work to supply their great want. He first called for a 
minstrel to play before him, probably to give him time 
to think what to say. lie then burst forth with, “ Thus 
saitli the Lord, make this valley full of ditches. For 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


47 


thus saith the Lord, ye shall not see wind, neither shall 
ye see rain ; yet that valley shall be filled with water, 
that ye may drink.” “ This,” observes Paine, u was 
what any countryman could have told them — that the 
way to get water was to dig for it.” 

I quote another instance, noticed specially by Paine, 
to show how the prophecies have been in many cases 
distorted from their obvious meaning, in order to make 
them apply to Jesus. The words are in Isaiah vii, 
and are as follows: “ Behold, a virgin shall conceive, 
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” 
This passage is so constantly dissociated from its con- 
text, that I doubt not but many persons are ignorant of 
the connection in which it occurs. The circumstances 
were these : Bezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, King of 
Israel, had made war upon Aliaz, King of Judah. The 
allied forces were at this time besieging Jerusalem, but 
were unable to reduce the garrison. Isaiah, at this junc- 
ture, went to Aliaz, and told him in the name of the 
Lord that he should finally be victorious; directing him 
at the same time to ask a sign of the Lord, in proof of 
the truth of this assertion. Aliaz refused, saying that 
he would not tempt the Lord. Whereupon Isaiah re- 
joined, “ Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a 
sign ; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, 
and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey 
shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and 
choose the good. For before the child shall know to re- 
fuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou 
abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” This 
puts quite a different face upon the matter. The birth 
of the child, and its refusing the evil and choosing the 
good, are to be a sign to Aliaz that he is to obtain the 


48 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


victory over Syria and Israel, and, of course, must occur 
before the latter event, as is expressly specified in the 
text. Moreover, a slight change must be made in the 
translation. The word virgin, in the original, simply 
means a young woman, and the tense is present, not 
future. "What Isaiah said, therefore, was in effect this : 
“There is a young woman about to be delivered of a 
child. Now, it shall be to you for a sign, that before 
this child shall know enough to refuse evil, and choose 
good (symbolized by his eating butter and honey), you 
shall prevail over Syria and Israel.” If we turn to the 
next chapter we shall find that the child spoken of is the 
prophet’s own. It would have been ridiculous to have 
given to Ahaz, as a sign of success, the promise that 
several centuries afterward Jesus should be born. The 
sign must be something that takes place before the event, 
and from which the latter may be known. But in pro- 
phesying victory to Ahaz, Isaiah was badly mistaken. 
The 28th chapter of II Chronicles tells us that Ahaz was 
defeated, with the loss of 120,000 men, 200,000 pris- 
oners, and a large amount of spoil. So that even if 
this prophecy had referred to Jesus, it would be nullified. 
Such a meaning, however, could only be given to it by 
forcibly separating it from its connection. 

None of the prophecies are better able to stand criti- 
cism than those 1 have mentioned. If they refer to 
Jesus, the language should be so unmistakable (the 
thing predicted being so important), that there could be 
no doubt about their meaning. In no instance, how- 
ever, is this the case ; while in regard to the majority, 
the application is most patently supplied by the context, 
as in the example given above. We may, therefore, 
taking also into account the character of their authors, 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


49 


of which I have quoted two illustrations, dismiss the 
prophecies as of no importance whatever. 

I come now to speak of Jesus Christ, and I wish to 
do so with all possible respect. He was a great and 
good man. In the midst of narrowness, selfishness, and 
superstition, he preserved his nature, up to the time of 
his premature death, free from all these defects. He 
stands out prominently, through the genial freshness and 
grand simplicity of his character, a sun whose beams 
shall penetrate to the remotest ages of time. Long after 
Christianity has become one of the many extinct reli- 
gions of earth, men will reverence the memory of Jesus 
Christ. It will therefore be understood that in what I 
am about to say, I am in no sense attacking the character 
of Jesus, but only the absurd mass of legend and super- 
stition which has been imposed upon the world by the 
Christian Church, and by which the latter has obscured 
the brightness of its noble founder till it is almost 
eclipsed. 

The first item in this Christian mythology, is the 
legend of Jesus’ miraculous birth. He is said to have 
been born of a virgin. As he is also said, being God, 
to have taken upon himself a human nature in all re- 
spects like ours; and as none of us are born without a 
father, the story appears somewhat inconsistent with the 
latter statement. It is difficult to conceive how he could 
have been a man like ourselves, if he came into the world 
in that miraculous way. But let us examine into this a 
little further. Upon whose testimony does the accuracy 
of this account dejiend ? Evidently upon his mother’s, 
for she alone had the means of knowing. Now, this is 
not the only instance in which children have been born 
of unmarried women, nor indeed the only one in which 


50 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUKCH. 


such a story lias been promulgated to account for the 
fact. Is it more likely that a pregnant unmarried 
female would tell an untruth to explain her condition, or 
that such an occurrence as the Immaculate Conception 
really took place ? The inquiry becomes stronger when 
we remember that among a superstitious people, like the 
Jews, the belief in the story would not only remove the 
disgrace which would otherwise rest upon her, but act- 
ually exalt her importance. 

Upon the whole, however, it is extremely improbable 
that Jesus was born out of wedlock. He is so often 
spoken of as Joseph’s son, that it is probable that the 
legend of his miractilous birth did not arise till later — 
perhaps not until after his death. His genealogy as 
given by Luke (which differs fatally from that in Mat- 
thew), commences, “Jesus . . . being the son 

of Joseph, which was the son of Ileli,” etc. In this 
there have been inserted, evidently by a later hand, the 
words “ as was supposed.” I say by a later hand, for if 
he was not the son of Joseph, what has Joseph’s gene- 
alogy to do with him ? 1 cannot imagine Luke doing 

such a ridiculous thing as to give at length the line of 
Joseph, prefixing it by the remark that Jesus was not 
of this line. Moreover, if the wonderful story said to 
have been told by his mother had been made known 
previous to this, it would have spread all over the 
country, and he would not have been supposed to be 
Joseph’s son. 

The Gospels mention only one incident in the child- 
hood of Jesus. This is that upon one occasion, at the 
age of twelve years, he was found by his parents in the 
Temple, listening to the doctors of the law, and asking 
them questions. This anecdote shows that even at that 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


51 


early period, lie took a strong interest in the Jewish 
religion, which it was subsequently the labor of his life 
to reform. Further than this, we have no account of 
him until after he had arrived at man’s estate, and was 
about to devote himself with all his strength to his self- 
appointed task. It is a grand spectacle to see a man 
thus daring openly to oppose the cherished ideas of ages, 
armed only with the sincerity of his convictions, and 
the magnanimity of his character, which make him a 
living example of the truths he teaches. Jesus stands 
before us in this position at the commencement of his 
public career. He is at first not without natural mis- 
givings as to the result of his efforts, which are at times 
so strong that he is tempted to relinquish the work. He 
knows that he must encounter the odium of the priest- 
hood and of the powerful Pharisees. He is conscious 
that in following the course he contemplates, he must 
resign all thoughts of wordly ambition. The kingdoms 
of this world and their glory will not be for him. Nor 
are these his only doubts. How is he to live? Can he 
command the stones to become bread ? He is tossed 
about by these conflicting thoughts to such an extent 
that, in describing them at a later time to his disciples 
(who could have come by the knowledge in no other 
way), he speaks of them as a personal temptation of the 
Evil One. The disciples, who never understood or 
appreciated his character, accepted his words literally, 
and gravely narrated this as an actual occurrence. 

At length his resolution is taken. There arc higher 
needs in man’s nature than that of meat and drink; and 
to the satisfaction of these he will dedicate his life. He 
must worship his heavenly Father, rather than the gods 
of this world, which perish.' He therefore hesitates no 


52 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


longer, but enters at once upon his task, trusting for liis 
daily bread to that loving and protecting Power without 
whose knowledge even the little sparrow does not fall to 
the ground. Ever afterwards in his teachings, this idea 
of dependence upon, and implicit confidence in, the Al- 
mighty, is the one most prominent. Ilis highest praise 
was, “ I have not found so great faith ; no, not in 
Israel”; his most pathetic reproach, “O ye of little 
faith.” Men had before conceived of God as a Law- 
giver, a Judge; it was reserved for Jesus to depict him 
as the universal Father. 

At first, all goes well. The common people receive 
him gladly, and follow him in crowds from place to 
place. His teachings fall upon the ears of the poor 
peasantry like the voice of the liberator speaking to the 
captive. Oppressed by priestly arrogance, ground down 
by religious exaction, this simple people hear with joy 
the words of one who tells them that these are but the 
vain inventions of men. When the Samaritan woman 
asks him whether Mount' Gerizim or Jerusalem is the 
proper place to worship God, he replies, “ Woman, be- 
lieve me, the hour cometli when ye shall neither in this 
mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 
God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship 
him in spirit and in truth.” As if he had said, “God 
is not honored, but rather affronted, by all your petty in- 
sistance upon forms of ritual. A better day is coming, 
when men shall recognize that God is not a man that he 
should take delight in such sordid observances, but a 
spirit; and when they shall worship Him spiritually, for 
only so can he be worshiped in truth.” 

This is the key-note of Jesus’ preaching. It is pure 
spiritism, coupled with an affectionate and trusting de- 


tup: case against the church. 


53 


pendence upon his heavenly Father. He does not 
gather his hearers together in the synagogue or temple, 
but by the wayside, in the fields, and on the sea-shore. 
There, surrounded by the beauty and grandeur of God’s 
handiwork, in that Church of Nature which modern 
Christians so despise, their Master drew in the inspiration 
for his sublime utterances. His most effective illustra- 
tions were taken from natural objects. “Consider the • 
lilies,” he exclaimed on one occasion, “they toil not, 
neither do they spin ; and yet I say unto you that not 
even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of 
these.” In all his discourses this exuberant love of na- 
ture is apparent. From the above passage, he makes 
the following application : “ Wherefore, if God so clothe 
the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is 
cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, 

O ye of little faith % ” We may imagine - the effect of 
such an appeal addressed to such an audience. No one 
had ever talked to them in this way before. They flock 
after Jesus in crowds, trying to touch even the hem of 
his garment. His path through Galilee is a- continuous 
triumphal procession. At length, like all religious 
reform ors, his enthusiasm makes him believe himself 
divinely called to the work he has chosen. He has 
so long thought of God as his Father, that he comes at 
last to regard himself as a specially favored son. In mo- 
ments of ecstatic exaltation, he feels himself, like Ploti- 
nus and Porphyry, united to the Supreme Being. At 
one such time he exclaims, “ I and my Father are one.” 
The bystanders understood by this that he claimed 
equality with the Almighty; but he defended himself 
forcibly against a charge so repugnant to his nature. 
“Is it not,” said he, “written in your law, I said, Ye are 


54 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUECH. 


gods ? If lie called tliem gods unto whom the word of 
God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye 
of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into 
the world, Thou blaspliemest; because I said, I am the 
Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, be- 
lieve me not; but if I do, though ye believe me not, be- 
lieve the works ; that ye may know and believe that the 
• Father is in me, and 1 in him.” So far from claiming 
equality with God, he says expressly, “My Father is 
greater than I.” In the face of this latter remark, the 
existence of such a doctrine as the Trinity is somewhat 
singular. 

The ancient prophets had been fond of predicting the 
advent of a champion or Messiah, who should restore the 
Jewish nation to its grandeur during the reigns of David 
and Solomon. Jesus appropriates this idea, and an- 
nounces that he also is the Messiah of a kingdom, but it 
is a kingdom not of this world. It is a kingdom whose 
seat is within a man, and in which whosoever will be 
greatest shall be made the servant of all. There must 
be no strife for power in this kingdom. It is to be the 
reign of love upon earth. 

Filled with these ideas, Jesus, in the third year of his 
public life, goes to Jerusalem. The result was what 
might have been expected. ~No opponent of priestcraft 
is safe in a priest-ridden community if the power of the 
clergy extends to life and death. The outspoken denun- 
ciations of Jesus, his fresh, hearty scorn, made the hier- 
archs wince ; and accordingly they hated him with an 
intensity of which the ungodly are not capable. Jesus 
was obliged to hide himself from their vengeance, but 
being at length betrayed by one of his own followers lie 
was tried upon a frivolous charge, condemned, and exe- 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


55 


cuted. He died a victim to theological odium — a 
martyr to the principle of freethought in religion. 

At this distance of time what estimate shall we form 
of the character of Jesus ? A few considerations will 
help ns, perhaps, in this task. Hotliing can be more 
certain than that if his counterpart should arise to-day, 
his bitterest and most unrelenting enemies would he the 
Christian Church. He was what is called in this age a 
leveler. He believed in no doctrine because it was 
old ; he had respect for no opinion because it was held 
by the great ones in the synagogue or nation. He 
judged every custom, every tradition, every dogma en- 
tirely upon its own merits, and most found them he of 
sadly wanting. He had for all priestly machinery an 
undisguised indignation and contempt. “Woe unto 
you,” said he, “ for ye bind heavy burdens, grievous to 
be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders ; but ye 
yourselves will not touch them with one of your fingers.” 
If he were to reappear in this nineteenth century in our 
country, no one would reprobate more strongly than he 
the mass of superstition, Pharisaism, and spiritual tyr- 
anny which has been imposed upon the world, in his 
name — in his name whose sole object in life was to 
protest against these very things ! As well preach des- 
potism in the name of Washington. Before he had been 
long among us he would find himself condemned as un- 
orthodox. If he still persisted in his irreligious teach- 
ings, the Christians of to-day would, like the Jews of 
old, exclaim as one man, “ Crucify him ! Crucify him ! ” 

I have thus briefly sketched the man as prefatory to 
touching upon the remaining absurdities of the system 
named after him. It will be better to take these up 
generically rather than specifically. Proceeding upon 


56 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


this plan, we first encounter the subject of miracles. 
The miracles attributed to Jesus are by no means the 
only ones we meet with in ancient writings, both sacred 
and profane. The same line of reasoning, however, of 
course applies to all. 

Whatever explanation be given of miracles, of one 
thing we may rest assured — they never took place as re- 
ported. A miracle is, by direct implication, an occur- 
rence which is in direct opposition to natural laws. If 
it be merely in conformity to laws which chance to be 
unknown, it is not a miracle. To be such, it must be 
antagonistic to all law. How we have only one method 
by which the economy of nature may be truly ascer- 
tained, and that is the one spoken of at the commence- 
ment of this essay — observation and induction. The 
course of reasoning is often called the argument from 
experience. We must observe a large number of facts — 
the larger the better — and from these we may generalize 
to the law. What are called laws of nature are merely 
such generalizations of phenomena, and may be com- 
pared to those algebraic formulae which are constructed 
to include a great number of cases in one comprehensive 
proposition. The product of x -f- y multiplied by itself 
is always x 2 2 xy -|- y 2 , though to x and y be given 
any values whatsoever. In the same manner, instead of 
enumerating all the different bodies which, left without 
support, fall to the earth, we say generally that all 
bodies thus fall. It is necessary to make this explana- 
tion, because the clergy often talk as if natural law were 
a pure invention of the atheistic intellect. 

Bearing in mind the above definition, the student of 
nature cannot fail to note, in all her manifestations, the 
inflexibility of these laws. This is so universal, that 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUECH. 


57 


the result of any particular experiment upon a known 
law can be with absolute certainty predicted. If I hold 
a weight in my hand, and then let it go, I know beyond 
a doubt what will happen. The weight will certainly 
fall. No one has ever seen an exception to this law. 
There is no such thing in nature as exception to law. 
To take an instance often referred to in this connection, 
let us glance at the discovery of Neptune. It had been 
observed that the motion of Uranus was not what it had 
been computed to be from theory. But astronomers 
did not suppose for a moment that here was an excep- 
tion to the principle of gravitation. On the contrary, 
having unlimited confidence in the universality of that 
principle, they reasoned that there must be an unknown 
body producing the disturbance. They calculated, upon 
the basis of the theory, the place and mass of the dis- 
turbing body ; they looked for it in that place, and there 
they found it. This discovery was a triumphant estab- 
lishment of the all-pervasiveness of the reign of law. 
¥e cannot, therefore, say that the laws of nature may 
be controverted, because we have absolutely no data 
upon which to base such an assertion; all observation 
leading to directly the opposite conclusion. 

The idea of miracles arises from the mode- before 
referred to, of attempting to explain natural phenom- 
ena — namely, the appeal to consciousness. It is based 
upon the a priori supposition that the universe is gov- 
erned by an arbitrary personal intelligence — a Big Man. 
Of course to such a being, acting merely from caprice, 
miracles, in the ordinary sense, would be possible, In 
that case, however, they would not really be miracles ; 
for, nature not being under the rule of law, any depar- 
ture from her ordinary method is no more wonderful 


58 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHUKCH. 


than adherence to that method. But how does it hap- 
pen, upon this hypothesis, that we have method in 
nature at all? 

That all observation contradicts this view is no obsta- 
cle to its supporters. The latter are accustomed to dis- 
parage reason as something which leads mankind only 
into error, unless “ aided ” — in other words, hampered — 
by a priori conceptions which are the death of all intel- 
lectual progress. 

Taking the Calvinistic view of God, miracles are 
clearly impossible. “ God,” says Calvinism, “ can do 
anything.” Can he, then, sin ? No, for that is con- 
trary to the very idea of God. What is sin ? The 
Westminister Catechism tells us that “ sin is any want 
of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” 
It is admitted, therefore, that God rules by means of 
law. Now, inasmuch as a miracle would be both out of 
conformity with, and in transgression of, some portion 
of the law of God, it must be conceded that God would 
sin if he performed a miracle. 

Upon a rational basis, it is easy to see the origin of 
these reputed miracles. “No miracle,” says Henan, 
“ was ever performed before a people who did not believe 
in miracles.” In this eminently true remark we have 
the core of the whole matter. Given a superstitious 
people, as were all the ancients, the J ews included, and 
the genesis of these legends needs no further exposition. 
Testimony is never wanting to support the supernatural. 
We have only to glance, in confirmation of this, at so 
comparatively recent a set of occurrences as the trials 
for witchcraft in Massachusetts. Head the sworn evi- 
dence of witnesses to the effect that witches in the shape 
of black cats, etc., appeared to them and conversed with 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 59 

them, and then place any confidence, if you can, in other 
similar testimony. If such things happened in modern 
times, what shall we expect of former ages, when the 
existence of the marvellous was not even questioned? 
We must also recollect that other miracles besides those 
found in the Bible are just as well authenticated as the 
latter. It would be extremely illogical to accept the 
miracles of Jesus, and reject the legends of the saints, 
which rest upon just as strong a foundation. McCosli* 
sees an essential difference in character between the mir- 
acles of Jesus, and those of Simon Magus, for example. 
The latter is said to have flown through the air, rolled 
himself unhurt upon burning coals, caused statues to 
talk, etc. Inasmuch as Jesus is reported to have walked 
upon the water, conjured money into a fish’s mouth, 
passed through closed doors, and done numerous other 
similar acts, I fail to discern McCosh’s distinction. 

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the sheet- 
anchor of Christianity. It is a pity the accounts of it 
do not agree better. One evangelist says that Mary 
Magdalene and another woman came to the sepulcher, 
when they saw an angel descend from heaven, roll back 
the stone from the entrance, and sit upon it. The angel 
told them that Jesus had risen. Another asserts that 
when the women arrived at the tomb, they found the 
stone already removed, and a young man sitting inside 
the sepulcher. A third testifies that they found the 
tomb empty, and, while they were wondering thereat, 
two men in shining garments suddenly stood by them ; 
while the fourth gives as his version that Mary Magda- 
lene, Peter, and himself were the ones who went to the 
sepulcher, which they found empty. Peter and John 


* “ Christianity and Positivism,” p. 289. 


60 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


then went their way, and after Mary was left alone she 
saw two angels inside. Mark says that the women said 
nothing to any man of what they had seen, because they 
were afraid ; while Luke declares that they told the 
eleven and all the rest. So that the several accounts 
even of so momentous an event as the resurrection, arc 
fatally discrepant. Of course, the resurrection, being a 
miracle, comes under the observations already made on 
the general subject. In this case, however, the origin 
of the story is quite apparent. If we compare the dif- 
ferent accounts, we shall find that the only character who 
figures in them all is Mary Magdalene. It is upon her 
testimony that the legend of the resurrection rests. It 
is not at all unlikely that an enthusiastic woman would 
devise such a report. She also was the first who saw 
him alive again. It would not be difficult to find some 
one to personate for a few days the character of Jesus, 
and then disappear in order to give rise to the report of 
the ascension. This view is supported by the fact that 
ho one seems to have recognized Jesus subsequent to the 
resurrection, until he disclosed himself to them. Upon 
one occasion the representative of Jesus walked several 
miles with two disciples who had followed the Master 
daily, and yet they did not know him. This could 
hardly be if it were really Jesus. Moreover, Jesus risen 
from the dead would have nothing to fear from the ut- 
most publicity, which it would rather be his object to 
court. His representative, on the contrary, skulks 
among the back ways of Jerusalem, and makes appoint- 
ments to meet the apostles in secluded and out-of-the- 
way places. It does not appear that any excitement was 
caused among the populace by the resurrection. In re- 
gard to the ascension, also, accounts differ. Matthew 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


61 


nnd John say nothing about it. Mark and Luke dispose 
of it in about a dozen words, and even then contradict 
each other. The one says the ascension took place from 
a room where the eleven sat at meat, and the other that 
Jesus led them out as far as Bethany and was there 
parted from them. 

But why reason gravely concerning what is legendary 
and absurd upon its very face? For no other reason 
than to show that those who profess, or are asserted, to 
narrate the circumstance under the effect of inspiration, 
do not tell a straight story. In a court of justice, such 
conflicting testimony would ruin any cause. Of course, 
if the different narratives fitted each other as neatly as 
the parts of a machine, the legend would still be utterly 
unworthy the credence of a rational man. Its situation 
is much worse, however, when it has not even consis- 
tency to recommend it. 

We find in the Acts of the Apostles some incidents set 
forth which remind us of the Old Testament. The pun- 
ishment of Ananias and Sapphira is one of these. It 
needs no comment. With such a story currently belie vd, 
no one would venture to “ keep back part of the price ” 
in future. We also find an account of certain fiery 
tongues descending upon the apostles, by which they 
were enabled to speak all languages without having 
learned them. If their Greek is a specimen, it was not 
much of a gift. These tongues were said to be the Holy 
Ghost. The conversion of Paul, the story of the serpent 
that fastened upon his arm, and numerous other similar 
occurrences mentioned in the book of Acts, all have the 
genuine old ring to them. What has been said of former 
anecdotes of the same kind, applies ecpially well to these. 

The subject of prayer is one that has recently attracted 


62 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


considerable attention. Like the kindred topic, miracles, 
it is inconsistent with the idea of law. If there is an ar- 
bitrary personal intelligence at the head of natural events, 
of course requests made to that power may meet with a 
response. But if, as all observation plainly teaches, 
everything that happens is the result of law, and the 
condition of nature at any moment is the direct resultant 
of its condition at the previous moment, then prayer is a 
waste of breath. In purely physical affairs (so called) 
its fruitlessness is particularly apparent. Take, as an 
oft-quoted example, the prayer for rain. The physical 
facts connected with rain are briefly these: an area of low 
barometer moves over a certain locality, its motion being 
subject to law, and capable of being predicted; the sur- 
rounding air then rushes in to restore the equilibrium. 
Now, if the air comes from a warm quarter, or from 
over the ocean, it will be charged with moisture ; and 
the expansion it undergoes upon coming into the region 
of diminished pressure, causes that moisture to condense 
in the form of clouds which fall in rain. If the wind 
blow from a very cold quarter, the moisture already pre- 
sent in the locality in question is chilled and condensed 
thereby, and a similar result follows. It is also capable 
of prediction, in any instance, from what point of the 
compass the wind will blow, so that the weather can be 
foretold for twenty-four or forty-eight hours in advance. 
All this plainly shows that atmospheric phenomena are 
not exempt from the universal legislation of nature. No 
entreaty of man can alter the sequence of these events 
in the slightest degree. Of course, if a man prays for 
rain, and persists in his prayer till the rain comes, ho 
gets what he wants. Inasmuch, however, as the rain 
would have come in any case, it may reasonably be 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


63 


doubted whether the prayer had much to do with it. 
Prayer is a tacit assertion that the order of nature may 
be changed at man’s request, which is placing it so far un- 
der his control. Every candid man is aware that in his 
own case this is not true, and yet many are unwilling 
to deny, in the aggregate, what each, in detail, knows to 
be false. 

In 1872, Sir Henry Thompson proposed to the relig- 
ious community to make this matter of prayer the sub- 
ject of a test, with a view of ascertaining its exact value. 
I have now before me the text of this famous “ prayer- 
gauge,” commonly, though erroneously, attributed to 
Tyndall. Sir Henry selects, as the subject of inquiry, 
the prayer for the sick. His proposition is, to take a 
single hospital, supplied with the best professional 
attendance, and devoted to diseases whose pathology and 
death-rate are best known, and make it the object of 
special prayer by the faithful for a period of, say, five 
years. At the end of that time the mortality statistics 
are to be compared with previous results in the same 
hospital, and in other similarly well-managed institutions, 
and thus the value of prayer will be determined. Here 
w T as the Church’s opportunity. Nothing could be fairer 
than this proposition. Either prayer for the sick is of 
value, or it is not. If it is, here is a simple, straight- 
forward, and conclusive plan of demonstrating the fact. 
If prayer cannot furnish such a demonstration, it is a 
mere figment of the imagination, taking its rise in that 
superstitious tendency to which I have already referred. 

The community waited anxiously for the action of the 
clergy upon the proposal. What was the result ? They 
refused to allow the experiment to be tried. For this 
conduct various reasons were assigned, all equally friv- 


64: 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


olous. Such prayer would not be made in the proper 
spirit ; it would be an insult to the Almighty, etc. In fact, 
they surrounded the subject of effectual prayer with so 
many conditions that, as no mail could ever fulfil them 
all, prayer “ in the proper spirit ” became an impossibil- 
ity. A man must be as resigned to the refusal of his 
prayer, as to its being grauted. This is saying in effect, 
that in order for him to get what he wants, he must not 
desire it sufficiently to care whether he gets it or not ; 
— a state of mind somewhat difficult to imagine. If it 
would be an insult to the Almighty to place beyond 
question his willingness to answer the requests of his 
people, then this proposition was an insult ; otherwise, not. 
We read in the Bible* that Elijah tried a similar experi- 
ment, and met with divine approval. It cannot, there- 
fore, be impious to repeat the test at the present day. 
The real reason for the refusal of the clergy was the 
secret conviction in their own minds, albeit some would 
not admit it to themselves in so many words, that 
prayer would not stand even such a simple test. But if 
that is the case, its value is purely imaginary. 

Bunning away before a battle, however, is equivalent 
to confessing oneself beaten. To all intents and pur- 
poses, therefore, the experiment was tried, and resulted 
in defeat for the Church. “ He that doeth truth, 
cometli to the light, that his deeds may be made mani- 
fest, that they are wrought in God.*’f 

Many of the clergy are wise enough to see that 
prayer has no value in physical affairs. They therefore 
relegate it to the domain of the mind, or soul. Here 
the phenomena are so complex that it seems at first 


* I Kings xviii, 17 et seq. 


\ John iii, 21. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


65 


sight as if law had no place in this realm. But in 
reality it is not so. The laws of the mind are being 
gradually discovered, and are found to be as rigid as 
those in any other province of nature. Every resolve, 
every emotion, every thought, happens as much through 
the action of law as the lightning or the tempest. 
“ There is no such thing,” says Draper, with epi- 
grammatic truth, “ as a spontaneous or self-originated 
thought.”* It can be foretold at the beginning of any year 
how many persons in a given community will be dishonest 
during the year, how many will commit suicide, etc. 
Of the suicides it can be predicted what proportion will 
drown themselves, how many blow their brains out, how 
many take poison, and so on. Law is everywhere — 
there is no room for prayer in any department of 
nature. 

The doctrines of the resurrection of the body, and of 
the future state, complete the Christian scheme. As to the 
first, it is an exceedingly clumsy device. After a man 
dies, his body returns to the earth, and becomes dis- 
tributed through the substance of other bodies, and of 
vegetation. If the body be burned, it is more quickly 
decomposed than if buried. At the resurrection, there- 
fore, not only would the particles of the body have to be 
gathered together out of rock, plant, and animal, but as 
every particle -would have formed part of more than one 
body, the question would arise to which it belongs. The 
originators of this dogma were evidently ignorant of 
what is called secular change. The matter which has 
furnished bodies to the earth’s population through all 


* While speaking of protoplasm, I used the word ‘ * self-origin- 
ated,” as applied to impulses. The term was there employed in a 
conventional, not in an exact, sense. 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


ages, would not simultaneously supply half of them. 
Many poor souls would be left out in the cold, so to 
speak. The resurrection of the body, apart from its 
mythical character, is a scientific impossibility. 

The Egyptians, from whom this notion was derived, 
followed it up more logically. They preserved the body, 
in order that the spirit might find it intact, even if 
slightly dry, when it should be wanted. Christians do 
not do this, and even the labor of the Egyptians is, after 
thousands of years, fast becoming of no avail, since the 
mummies are being consumed as fuel on the railroads of 
modern Egypt. 

Closely allied to the doctrine of the resurrection is 
that of a future state. This implies the idea of spirit. 
The hypothesis of the existence of spirit (by no means 
peculiar to, or orignating with, Christianity) supposes 
that there is in every human being an immaterial part, 
which is really the man himself. To this the body stands 
in the relation of a house to its tenant. The body may, 
and does, die ; but the spirit is immortal. For every 
child born into the world a soul is created. It is the 
soul that thinks, feels, and suffers ; the body is merely 
its minister. 

Modern research on the subject of the nervous system 
is fast putting this idea to flight; still, however, our 
theme would not be complete without some allusion to 
it. If the doctrine be true, the spirit must enter into a 
child at some definite time. When does this time occur ? 
If at the ordinary period of birth, how is it with seven 
months’ children ? If these latter have souls, how about 
the foetus at six months? at five? at four? We con- 
tinue our inquiries until we reach at last the ovum. But 
this is merely a protoplasm cell, not differing from those 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHOTiCII. 


67 


we may draw up from the ocean depths. It is impossi- 
ble to conceive of an immortal soul residing in a minute 
globule of albuminoid substance. Still, one of my op- 
ponents may reply, it is perhaps so. Then it must be 
conceded that all protoplasm cells have souls ; and, as 
the human body contains myriads of these, a man must 
have a corresponding number of souls. If we glance at 
the life of a human being, we find that at birth this part 
that thinks and feels is rudimentary and undeveloped. 
As the body increases in size and strength, this also cor- 
respondingly increases. When the body arrives at perfect 
development, the soul is at its prime. This stage past, 
the body begins to be enfeebled, the soul keeping exact 
pace with it. The body at length becomes helpless, the 
senses fail, and the entire system shows plainly that it is 
nearly exhausted. The soul is not more vigorous than 
its companion. The mental powers are nearly gone, 
memory has lost her seat, the reasoning faculties are 
dimmed. At last, the worn-out body dies, and the 
soul ? — springs at once into life and vigor, says the 
Church. Where is there one single fact in the past 
history of soul and body to lead to such a conclusion ? 
Does not everything contradict it ? If the brain be- 
comes injured, the mind or soul is correspondingly im- 
paired. If, therefore, the brain dies, what then ? There 
was exhibited in Hew York a few years ago, a negro 
girl with two heads. The cause of this phenomenon was 
evidently the fusing together of two foetuses at an early 
stage of intra-uterine life. There was but one set of 
digestive and respiratory organs, rather larger than or- 
dinary, as might have been expected. Both brains were 
active, and one head could talk upon one subject, while 
the other discoursed upon another. In fact, this girl 


68 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


had two souls ; and why ? Because she had two brains. 
The residence of the soul, therefore, is the brain, and 
only by means of this organ does it manifest itself. In 
the event of the absence or death of the brain, how 
does the soul exist ? Questions like these are difficult, 
— nay, impossible — for the spiritist to answer, and are 
increasing in number every day. Moreover, though a 
child be born of shame, or even of crime, God is 
obliged to create for it a soul. This is plainly making the 
Almighty subservient to the worst passions of mankind. 

As this doctrine did not originate with Christianity, 
the Church is to be held responsible for it only so far 
as she gives it her support. It is not intellectually per- 
nicious, like most of the Christian myths ; it is simply 
untenable. Its poetic beauty will not save it from the 
inevitable fate of error. 

A few words before closing upon the past and present 
attitude of the Church toward progress. It has been, 
and is, an attitude of steady opposition. In the early 
centuries of our era, when Church and State were one, 
the means taken to suppress enlightenment were the 
dungeon, the rack, the cruel torture, and the stake. As 
a natural consequence, during the ten centuries’ sway of 
the Church, the world groped in intellectual darkness. 
The revival of learning in the sixteenth century was sim- 
ultaneous with the decadence of priestly rule. Always 
imitating, however, the conduct of those who love dark- 
ness rather than light because their deeds are evil, the 
Church still opposes, with equal hostility, though with 
greatly diminished power, every attempt to lead the race 
to a higher intellectual plane. At the present time, the 
policy pursued is one of insidious treachery. The clergy 
profess the greatest respect for science, and even devote 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


69 


their personal attention thereto. They claim the right 
to judge, however, between true and false science ; and 
tell us that the former deals only with ascertained facts, 
not with wild speculations and theories. By the latter 
phrase is always meant evolution in some form — Dar- 
winism, or the nebular theory. Now, inasmuch as the 
same line of reasoning would have applied equally well 
to gravitation, or the undulatory theory, when these were 
yet in abeyance, the principle if put in force soon 
enough would have checked all intellectual growth what- 
soever. There is no mental pleasure in the mere observ- 
ation of facts, if the mind is forbidden to generalize 
and draw inferences therefrom. According^, if we fol- 
lowed the teachings of the Church in regard to science, 
the latter would speedily die for want of breath; and 
this is exactly the result which, under the guise of friend- 
ship, is aimed at. But forewarned is forearmed, and it 
is exceedingly doubtful if the Church, now herself upon 
the defensive, can ever re-establish her tyranny over the 
minds of men.* It is true that science positively sanc- 
tions nothing that has not been definitely ascertained, 
but she reserves to herself the right of judgment ; and 
meanwhile gives a provisional consent to that theory 
which is best supported. Science holds to nothing after 
it has been proved to be false, but I challenge any one 
to point to an instance in which she has retired defeated 
from a contest with the Church. Whatever enlightenment 
may exist in this nineteenth century we owe entirely to 
science. In the face of all history to the contrary, it is 
impertinence to claim for Christianity the credit of mod- 
ern civilization. 

* A great point was gained when science was introduced into 
the colleges, of course after bitter clerical opposition. 


70 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


In conclusion, I wish to address a few words of earnest 
appeal to the vast majority of the Christian laity, who 
are members of the Church because of their education, 
or who have joined under the influence of religious ex- 
citement. My petition to these persons is (and I would 
I could urge it more strongly), Hear the other side. If 
your religion be what you believe it is, the revelation of 
God to man, you have nothing to fear from any assaults 
made upon it. There have been and are now, as you 
know, men of culture and intellectual renown who think 
differently from you. You have heard these men villi- 
fied, and are perhaps ready to join in condemning them 
to infamy. Have you forgotten that mob in the city of 
Jerusalem, who, when asked, “ What evil hath this man 
done ? ” had no reply to give save, “ Let him be cruci- 
fied” ? Do you desire to make such conduct your own? 
Did it never occur to you that these men whom you de- 
spise might possibly have been sincere in what they said 
and wrote ? Has the thought not passed through your 
mind that they may perhaps have had better reason for 
their belief than you have for yours, inasmuch as they 
have done what you have not — given the subject an in- 
vestigation ? Does not your sense of justice recoil from 
meting out condemnation to those whom you have given 
no chance to speak ? Let me beg you, in the name of 
fairness, to persist in this course no longer. Truth has 
no need of suppression and prejudice. You would not 
approve the conduct of a juror who made up his mind 
after hearing one side of a case. But what you 
would condemn in such a man you are yourself practic- 
ing in regard to a matter whose issue is infinitely more 
momentous. Hay, more : the chances are that you 
could not even defend from attack your own side. If 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


n 


you could converse with Paine or Voltaire upon this 
subject, you would probably be vanquished. Put on 
your armor, therefore, and qualify yourself to “ give a 
reason for the hope that is in you.” But you will tell 
me, perhaps, that your clergyman has examined the ar- 
guments of skeptics, and has told you from the pulpit, or 
in private, that they are frivolous, that a child can an- 
swer them, and so on. My friend, allow no one to think 
for you in this matter. If you wished to ascertain 
whether charges against a public official were well 
grounded, you would not accept their denial by the party 
implicated as conclusive. If you will read the argu- 
ments your spiritual adviser makes so light of, you will 
find that they are anything but frivolous, and that a 
child could by no means answer them. Indeed, you 
must be aware that the acutest intellects in your Church 
have not thought it beneath them to engage in this dis- 
cussion. If you are a Homan Catholic, my words are 
not meant for you, because your Church forbids freedom 
of opinion. But if you are a Protestant, exercise that 
right of individual judgment which is the corner-stone 
of Protestantism. Head first the arguments on your 
own side, in order that you may know with exactness 
what you do profess. Head next the arguments of the 
opposition, that you may be capable of forming an opin- 
ion upon the whole case. You must view it on all sides 
before you can do that. Until you do it, you “ worship 
you know not what.” But you have no time to do all 
this \ Then you have no time to believe one side or the 
other. Would you sign a document of whose contents 
you were ignorant, if you had no time to read it ? Yet 
that is what you are doing here. 

Do not let prejudice govern you in this discussion. 


72 


THE CASE AGAINST THE CHURCH. 


There is an infallible means of determining whether you 
are under its sway. If you find yourself regarding any 
opinion, or any argument, with horror or shrinking, you 
may he sure that you are still prejudiced, and not in a 
condition for your judgment to act calmly. 

Lastly, do not allow your inclinations to influence your 
final decision. Accept those opinions which your reason 
tells you are best supported by evidence, giving to every 
argument its full weight. If the opposition appears to 
you to have the best of the case, admit it like a man. 
There is no cowardice so contemptible as being afraid to 
believe wliat one’s conscience tells him is true. If the 
result is otherwise, you will then have what you certainly 
have not now — an intelligent belief in the doctrines of 
Christianity. In either event you will have the satis- 
faction of knowing that you have acted honestly with 
yourself, as you believe you must finally act in the great 
Day of Judgment. 


PUBLICATIONS OF CHARLES P. SOMERBY. 


Prometheus. “ To Destroy, you must Replaced Prometheus is a 
Journal designed as an aid to the Reconstruction of Society 
on the basis of the Philosophy of Science' It gives promi- 
nence to the best efforts of Constructive Thinkers in Europe. 
It is also a Weekly Record and Review of the best and latest 
Philosophical, Scientific, Oriental, and Rationalistic Litera- 
ture, and contains a Select List of these works. An octavo 
weekly. $3 per year, in advance, postpaid ; single copy, 10c. 

The Martyrdom of Man. By Winwood Reade. Extra cloth, 
12mo, 543 pp. Postpaid, $3. 

It is really a remarkable book, in which universal history is “ boiled down” witli 
surprising skill. — [Literary World. 

The sketch of early Egyptian history, in the first chapter, is a masterpiece of 
historical writing. He has a style that reminds us of Macaulay.— [Penn Monthly. 

Nathaniel Yaughan. A Novel. By Frederika Macdonald, 
author of the “ Iliad of the East,” etc. 3 vols. in 1, extra 
clo. , black and gold side stamp, 12mo, 404 pp. Postpaid, $1. 50. 

An independent and respectable study of character iu the law of circumstance 
such as even George Eliot might not have been ashamed to own. . . . It is a 
really artistic composition, with a sound moral expressed, though not obtruded, on 
the canvas.— [Westminster Review. 

A Few Words About the Devil, and Other Biographical Sketches 
and Essays. By Charles Bradlaugh. Portrait, 2d ed., 
extra cloth, gold side stamp, 12mo, 260 pp. Postpaid, $1.50. 

In a handsome volume before us Charles Bradlaugh has “ A Few Words ” to 
say “ About the Devil.” Mr. Bradlaugh has a right to his Few Words, and the Devil 
will, we presume, at no distant day, have a “few words ’ to say to Mr. Bradlaugh, 
and will doubtless get the best of the argument. — [Chicago Interior. 

Issues of the Age; Or, Consequences Involved in Modern 
Thought. By Henry C. Pedder. Extra cloth, beveled, 
gold back and side stamp, 12mo. Postpaid, $1.50. 

The author of this volume has evidently kept company with many of the finer 
spirits of the age, until his mind has become imbued with the fragrance of their 
1 bought. He has excellent tendencies, elevated tastes, and sound aspirations.— [New 
York Tribune. 

The Politics of the Gospels; Or, the Socialistic Element in the 
Early Christian Movement. By Austin Bierbower. Ex- 
tra cloth, 12mo. Postpaid, $1.50. 

An interesting statement of the Socialistic ideas, tendencies, and purposes of 
the primitive Christians. 

The Christ of Paul; Or, the Enigmas of Christianity. St. John 
never in Asia Minor ; Irseneus the author of the Fourth Gos- 
pel ; the Frauds of the Churchmen of the Second Century 
Exposed. By George Reber. Extra cloth, 12mo, 400 pp. 
Postpaid, $2. 

The purpose of this book is to convince the world that the greater part of the 
New Testament, as at present received by Christians, was fabricated by the dogma- 
tists of the second century, to enforce doctrines which were not warranted by the 
original teachings of Christ and the Apostles.— [New York Daily World. 

Send for Complete Descriptive List. 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, Publisher, 

ijp Eighth Street , Nciv York. 


PUBLICATIONS OF CHARLES P. SOMERBY. 


Heroines of Freethought. By Sara A. Underwood. Large 
new type, heavy tinted paper, broad margins. Extra cloth, 
12mo, 327 pp. Postpaid, $1.50. 

A series of brief biographies of the most distinguished Freetliinldng women of 
the past and present centuries, including Madame Roland, Maiy Wolistonecraft (God- 
win, Harriet Martineau, Frances Power Cobbe, George Eliot, and half a dozen 
others. 

Personal Immortality, and Other Papers. By Josie OprEN- 
iieim. Extra cloth, 12mo, about 100 pp. Postpaid, $1 

A woman’s modest and considerate statement of her dissent from current theol- 
ogical ideas— in which Immortality and Prayer are discussed with ability, from a 
standpoint of pure Rationalism. 

The Historical Jesus of Nazareth. By M. Sciilesinger, Ph.D., 
Rabbi of the Congregation Anslie Emetli, Albany, N. Y. 
Extra cloth, 12mo, 98 pp. Postpaid, $1. 

This little volume of less than a hundred pages contains what a conscientious 
and learned Jew of the nineteenth century has to say about Jesus Christ as an his- 
torical figure and character.— [St. Louis Republican. 

The Ultimate Generalization. An Effort in the Philosophy of 
Science. Extra cloth, 12mo, 58 pp. Postpaid, 75 cents. 

The statement, accompanied by strong evidence, of anew law named “Corre- 
lation,” larger or more inclusive than that of Evolution; claimed to be the ultimate 
inductive basis of the Philosophy of Science, and by implication to have a bearing 
more or less direct upon all the great questions of the time. 

The Case Against the Church. A Summary of the Arguments 
against Christianity. “ Not giving heed to Jewish fables .” — Titus 
i, 14. Extra cloth, 12mo, 72 pp. Postpaid, 75 cents. 

An attempt is here made to apply the principles of scientific materialism to the 
investigation of the myths and legends of Christianity. — — 

Advancement of Science. Tyndall’s Belfast Inaugural Address, 
and the Famous Articles of Professor Tyndall and Sir 
Henry Thompson ON PRAYER. With Portrait and Bio- 
graphical Sketch of Professor Tyndall. And opinions of his 
services by the eminent scientist Professor H. Helmholtz. 
Postpaid, paper, 35 cents ; cloth, 75 cents. Inaugural and 
portrait, paper, 15 cents. 

Professor Tyndall has inaugurated a new era in scientific development, and has 
drawn the sword in a battle whose clash of arms will presently resound through the 
civilized world.— [New York Tribune. 

Essays on Mind, Matter, Forces, Theology, Etc. By Charles 
E. Townsend. Extra cloth, 12mo, 404 pp. Postpaid, $2. 

The author advances some novel theories on theological and scientific questions, 
leading to somewhat original conclusions. 

The Safest Creed, and Twelve other Recent Discourses of Rea- 
son. By O. B. Frothingham. Cloth, beveled, black side 
stamp, 12mo, 238 pp. Postpaid, $1.50. 

“ To cherish no illusion ” might be the text of every one of them. There is 
everywhere a resolute attempt to adjust thought and life to what is really known, to 
accept the facts and then sec what sustenance can be extracted from them.— [Liberal 
Christian. 

Send for Complete Descriptive List. 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, Publisher, 

ijp Eighth Street, New York. 


PUBLICATIONS OF CHARLES P. SOMERBY. 


The Cultivation of Art, And its Relations to Religious Puritan- 
ism and Money-Getting. By A. R. Cooper. 12mo, postpaid, 
fancy paper, 50 cents ; flexible cloth, 75 cents. 

It is not religion, but religion’s parody, theology, which arrays itself in opposi- 
tion to that sincere and manifold expression of human impulse and power to which 
we give the name of art.— [Extract. 

The Essence of Religion. God the Image of Man. Man’s De- 
pendence upon Nature the Last and Only Source of Religion. 
By L. Feuerbach, author of “Essence of Christianity.” 
Cloth, 12mo. Postpaid, 75 cents. 

The purpose of my writing is to make men anthropology an s instead of theolo- 
gians ; man-lovers instead of God-lovers ; students of this world instead of candi- 
dates for the next ; self-reliant citizens of the earth iastead of subservient and wily 
ministers of a celestial and terrestrial monarchy. — [Feuerbach. 

The Childhood of the World. A Simple Account of Man in 
Early Times. By Edward Clodd, F.R.A.S. 12mo. Post- 
paid, paper, 50 cents ; cloth, 75 cents. 

Information not popularly accessible elsewhere as to the life of Primitive 
Man and its relation to our own.— [E. B. Tylor, F. It. A. S. 

Soul Problems. With Papers on the Theological Amendment 
and the State Personality Idea. By Joseph E. Peck. 12mo. 
Postpaid, paper, 50 cents. 

The author is a materialist. He holds that matter is the only ent'ty, that personal, 
conscious immortality is impossible ; that that which is born must die — that which 
is formed must be dissolved. He is mild in his plea, has no epithets for the believ- 
ers, and presses his cause only by argument. 

The Antiquity of Christianity. By John Alberger. 12mo. Post- 
paid, paper, 35 cents ; cloth, 75 cents. 

The Divine Origin of Christianity Disproved by its Early History. The Confes- 
sions of the Church Fathers as to the Paganism of their Creed. 

Positivist Primer. Conversations on the Religion of Humanity. 
Dedicated to the only Supreme Being man can ever know ; 
the Great, but Imperfect, God, Humanity, in whose image 
all other Gods were made, for whose service all other Gods 
exist, and to whom all the Children of Men owe Labor, Love, 
and Worship. Cloth, 12mo. Postpaid, 75 cents. 

Religious Positivism. A Brief Exposition of the System of 
Worship, of Faith, and of Life, Propounded by Auguste 
Comte. Love our Principle, Order our Basis, Progress our 
End.” By H. Edger. Paper, I2mo. Postpaid, 50 cents. 

Scripture Speculations. With an Introduction on the Creation, 
Stars, Earth, Primitive Man, Judaism, etc. By Halsey R. 
Stevens. Extra cloth, 12mo, 419 pp. Postpaid, $2. 

He approaches his subject with all reverence, with a mind well stored with 
the facts of modem speculation and discovery, and in a modest and independent 
spirit. He writes with great candor and freedom, and makes it his honest endeavor 
to remove all stumbling blocks out of the beaten path.— [Chicago Inter-Ocean. 

Send for Complete Descriptive List. 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, Publisher, 

f ijp Eighth Street, New York. 


PUBLICATIONS OF CHARLES P. SOMERBY. 


Percy Bysshe Shelley as a Philosopher and Reformer. By Ciias. 
Sotiieran. Including an Original Sonnet by C. W. Fred- 
erickson. Portrait of Shelley, and View of his Tomb. 60 pp., 
8vo. Postpaid, paper, $1 ; cloth, $1.25. 

This is a paper read by its author before the New York Liberal Club. It is de- 
signed to take a philosophical view of Shelley’s works, and present in regularly sci- 
entific form the philosophy which the poet taught, it may be almost unconsciously to 
h mself. — [St. Louis Globe-Democrat. 

General Introduction to Social Science. [Sociological Series, No. 1.] 
Part 1. Introduction to Fourier’s Theory of Social Organiza- 
tion. By Albert Brisbane. Part II. Social Destinies. 
By Chas. Fourier. 8vo, clo., 272 pp. Postpaid, $1. 

The first of a series of Sociological works in which Fourier is taken up as the 
great Pioneer in the science. It contains both Mr. Brisbane’s Introduction and 
Fourier’s own Prospectus or outline sketch of his whole doctrine. 

Theory of Social Organization. [ Sociological Series , No. 2.] By 
Charles Fourier. With an Introduction, by Albert 
Brisbane. Cloth, 12mo, 612 pp. Postpaid, $1.50. 

This contains Fourier's Theory of Social Unity, and comprises essays upon the 
Social Destiny of Man, and a large variety of Sociological subjects. Mr. Brisbane 
claims that Fourier's theory is radically misunderstood by the general public, and 
that no true test of it has ever yet been made in practice. This and the preceding 
volume will do much toward furnishing a knowledge of the man and his teachings. 

Essence of Christianity. By L. Feuerbach. Translated by 
George Eliot. Clo., gold side and back, 340pp. Postpaid, $3. 
Philosophy of Spiritualism, and the Pathology and Treatment 
of Mediomania. By F. R. Marvin, M.D., Professor of Psy- 
chological Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence in the New 
York Free Medical College for Women. Clo. Postpaid, 75c. 

There is no way of getting rid of Infidelity till some way is devised of abolish- 
ing the doctors. And here is another point : he says the special indulgence in re- 
ligious exercises undermines the fabric of morality. 

Age of Reason, and Examination of the Prophecies. Being 
an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. By Thomas 
Paine, author of “The Rights of Man,” “ Crisis,” “ Common 
Sense,” etc. With an Essay on his Character and Services, by 
G. J. Holyoake. 12mo, 130 pp. Postpaid, pap. , 50c. ; clo. , 60c. 

Secularists’ Manual of Songs and Ceremonies, for use at Mar- 
riages, Funerals, etc. Edited by Austin Holyoake and Chas. 
Watts. Flexible cloth, 12mo, 128 pp. Postpaid, 50 cents. 
Herbert Spencer’s First Principles. A Summary. By Wm. A. 

Leonard. Paper, 12mo, 48*pP- Postpaid, 50 cents. 

The Christmas Festival : Its Origin, History and Customs. 
Together with a selection of Carols. By Wm. A. Leon- 
ard. Cloth, 12mo, 56 pp. Postpaid, 60 cents. 

Music in the Western Church. A Lecture on the History of 
Psalmody, illustrated with examples of the Music of various 
periods. By Wm. A. Leonard, author of “The Christmas 
Festival,” etc. Flexible cloth, 12mo, 89 pp. Postpaid, 75c. 

Send for CompSets Descriptive List. 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, Publisher, 

ijp Eighth Street , New York . 


THE CHRIST OF 

Or, THE ENIGMAS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

St. John never in Asia Minor. Ireneus the Author of the Fourth Gospel. 

The Frauds of the Churchmen of the Second Century Exposed. 

By GEORGE REBER. 

12mo, Extra Cloth, 400 pp« Postpaid, $2. 

CONTENTS. — Chapter I. Death of Stephen. Conversion of Paul. His retirement 
to Arabia, and return to Damascus and Jerusalem. 

Chap. II. Paul and Barnabas start west to preach the Gospel. The prevailing 
ideas on religion in Asia Minor. Theology of Plato and Philo. The effect pro- 
duced by the preaching of Paul. Chap. III. Therapeutic of Philo, and Essenes of 
Josephus. An account of them. Their disappearance from history, and what be- 
came of them. Chap. IV. The origin of the Church. Chap. V. Review of 
the past. What follows in the future. Chap. YI. How the Four Gospels originated. 

Chap. VII. John, the son of Zebedee, never in Asia Minor. John the Presbyter 
substituted. The work of Irenaeus and Eusebius. John the Disciple has served to 
create an enigma in history. John of Ephesus a myth. 

Chap. VIIL The Gnostics. Irenaeus makes war on them. His mode of warfare. 
The Apostolic succession and the object. No church in Rome to the time of Adrian. 
Peter never in Rome, nor Paul in Britain, Gaul, or Spain. Forgeries of Iremeus. 

Chap. IX. The claim of Irenaeus, that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and Luke 
the author of the third Gospel, considered. Luke and Mark both put to death with 
Paul in Rome. Chap. X. Acts of the Apostles. Schemes to exalt Peter at the ex- 
pense of Paul. Chap. XI. Matthew the author of the only genuine Gospel. Re- 
jected, because it did not contain the first two chapters of the present Greek version. 

Chap. XII. The character of Iremeus, and probable time of his birth. His partial- 
ity for traditions. The claim of the Gnostics that Christ did not suffer, the origin of 
the fourth Gospel. Iremeus the writer. Chap. XIII. Why Iremeus wrote the fourth 
Gospel in the name of John. He shows that the Gospels could not be less than four, 
and proves the doctrine of the incarnation by the Old Testament and the Synoptics. 
The author of the Epistles attributed to St. John. 

Chap. XIV. Four distinct eras in Christianity from Paul to the Council of Nice. 
The Epistles of Paul and the works of the Fathers changed to suit each era. The 
dishonesty of the times. Chap. XV. The Trinity, or fourth period of Christianity. 

Chap. XVI. The Catholic Epistles. 

Chap. XVH. No Christians in Rome from A.D. 66 to A.D. 117. Chap. XVIII. 
The office of Bishop foreign to churches established by Paul, which were too poor 
and too few in number to support the Order. Third chapter of the second Epistle 
to Timothy, and the one to Titus, forgeries. The writings of the Fathers corrupted. 

Chap. XIX. Linus never Bishop ol Rome. Ciement, third Bishop, and his successors 
to the time of Anicetus, myths. Chronology of Eusebius exposed; also that of Irenaeus. 

Chap. XX. The prophetic period. The fourteenth verse of the seventh chapter of 
Isaiah explained. Chap. XXI. Bethlehem the birthplace of Christ, as foretold by the 
prophets. Cyrus the deliverer and ruler referred to by Micah the prophet. The pas- 
sage from the Lamentations of Jeremiah quoted by Matthew, chap, ii., verse 18, 
refers to the Jews, and not to the massacre of the infants by Herod. 

Chap. XXII. Christ and John the Baptist. Chap. XXHI. The miracle of the 
Cloven Tongues. Misapplication of a prophecy of Joel. 

Chap. XXIV. Miracles. Chap. XXV. Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. 

Chap. XXVI. The controversy between Ptolemieus and Irenaeus as to the length 
of Christ’s ministry. Christ was in Jerusalem but once after he began to preach, 
according to the first three Gospels, but three times according to John. If the state- 
ments made in the first three are true, everything stated in the fourth could only hap- 
pen after the death of Christ. 

Chap. XXVII. The phase assumed by Christianity in the fourth Gospel demanded 
a new class of miracles from those given in the first three. A labored effort in tins 
Gospel to sink the humanity of Christ. His address to Mary. The temptation in the 
wilderness ignored, and the last supper between him and his disciples suppressed. 
Interview between Christ and the women and men of Samaria. A labored effort to 
connect Christ with Moses exposed. , . . 

Chap. XXVIII. The first two chapters of Matthew not in existence during the time 
of Paul and Apollos. A compromise was made between their followers at the Coun- 
cil of Smyrna, A.D. 107.* The creed of the Church as it existed at that day deter- 
mined, and how Christ was made manifest. Catholics of the second century repu- 
diate this creed and abuse Paul. Further proof that Irenaeus never saw Polycarp. 
Injuries inflicted upon the world by the fourth Gospel. 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, Publisher, 

139 Eighth Street, JVen> Tori', 


ISSUES OF THE AGE; 

OR, 

CONSEQUENCES INVOLVED IN MODERN THOUGHT. 

By HENRY C. REDDER. 

12 mo, Extra Cloth, Beveled Price, $1.50. 


“ The author of this volume has evidently kept company with 
many of the finer spirits of the age, until his mind has become 
imbued with the fragrance of their thought. lie has excellent 
< cndcncics, elevated tastes, and sound aspirations .” — New York 
Tribune. 

“In the restless spirit of inquiry abroad, and the feverish 
excitement of doubt, he sees the returning glory of that intellect- 
ual empire which declined with Grecian culture. lie has brought 
the fruits of a large culture and extensive reading, and a mind 
unusually calm and thoughtful, to bear upon the questions which 
are agitating the hour.” — N. Y. World. 

“An admirably written, scholarly volume .” — New York Daily 
Graphic. 

“An unprejudiced and thoughtful consideration of some of 
the most momentous questions that are now agitating the world, 

and will, no doubt, attract, as it deserves, the widest attention.” 

N. Y. Commercial Advertiser. 


2 


ISSUES OF THE AGE. 


“Tlie seven essays of this volume are all wise, can did, and 
free from harshness against conservatism, while they are in sym- 
pathy with liberal ideas. Mr. Pedder is not one of those radicals 
who rail at the Christian religion. Indeed his rationalism has 
throughout a ‘ sweet reasonableness,’ and is not the fierce dogma- 
tism of those positive souls who would, with Yoltairean direct- 
ness, ‘crush the infamous one.’ We shall be glad to hear from 
him again.” — Christian Register, (Boston). 

“He presents a safe guide through the bewildering labyrinth 
of scientific, philosophical, and theological speculations, and 
evinces a thorough familiarity with most of the modern theories 
advanced.” — Jeicish Times. 

“ The author is evidently a man of genuine literary taste. His 
book exhibits reflection and independence.” — N. Y. Eve. Post. 

“A shining light in the peculiar school of philosophy which 
lie affects.” — St. Louis Times. 

“A truly able discussion of the subjects which most vitally 
concern the higher nature and larger life of man.” — Chicago Even- 
ing Journal. 

“His views are characterized by a broad catholicity and a 
depth of thought which do credit at once to his heart and his 
mind.” — Grand Rapids Democrat. 

“Some of its chapters contain a power of analysis rarely sur- 
passed. In many respects it is a valuable book for the student.” — 
St. Louis Dispatch. 

“ A work of much more than ordinary interest. It contains 
profound and impressive thoughts and sentiments.” — Buffalo Post. 

“ Its real merits can only be discovered by a perusal.”— Toledo 
Journal. 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, 


Publisher 


Iron-Clad Series. 


Cents. 


1. — The Atonement, by Clias. Bradlaugh 

2. — Secular Responsibility, by George Jacob Holyoake 

3. — Christianity and Materialism Contrasted, by Underwood. 

4. — Influence of Christianity on Civilization, by Underwood. 

5. — The Essence of Religion, by L. Feuerbach, paper 

C. — Materialism, by Dr. L. Buchner 

7. — Buddhist Nihilism, by Prof, Max Muller 

8. — The Religion of Inhumanity* by Frederic Harrison 

9. — Relation of Witchcraft to. Religion, by A. C. Lyall 

10. — Epidemic Delusions, by Dr. F. R. Marvin, paper 

11. — The Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship, paper. .. 

12. — The Principles of Secularism Illustrated. G. J. Holyoake. 

13. — Essay on Miracles, by David Hume 

14. — The Land Question, by Chas. Bradlaugh 

15. — Were Adam and Eve our First Parents, by C. Bradlaugh. 

10. — Why Do Men Starve ? by Chas. Bradlaugh 

17. — The Logic of Life, by George J. Holyoake 

18. — A Plea for Atheism, by Chas. Bradlaugh 

19. — Large or Small Families ? by Austin Holyoake 

20. — Superstition Displayed, with a Letter of Wm. Pitt, by 

Austin Holyoake 

21. — Defense of Secular Principles, by Charles Watts, Secre- 

tary of the National Secular Society, London 

22. — Is The Bible Reliable ? by Charles Watts 

23. — The Christian Deity, by Charles Watts 

24. — Moral Value of the Bible, by Charles Watts 

25. — Free Thought and Modern Progress, by Charles Watts. . 

26. — Christianity : Its Nature, and Influence on Civilization, 

by Charles Watts 

27. — Christian Scheme of Redemption, by Charles Watts 

28. — Thought on Atheism, by Austin Holyoake 

29. — Is there a Moral Governor of the Universe ? A. Holyoake 

30. — Philosophy of Secularism, by Charles Watts 

31. — Has Man a Soul ? by Charles Bradlaugh 

32. — The Origin of Christianity, by Charles Watts 

33. — Historical Value of the New Testament, by Chas. Watts. 

34. — On Miracles, by Charles Watts 

35. — On Prophecies, by Charles Watts 

36. — Practical Value of Christianity, by Charles Watts 

37. — Progress of Christianity, by Charles Watts 

38. — Is There a God ? by Charles Bradlaugh 


5 

5 

15 

25 

50 

25 

10 

20 

15 

25 

50 

25 

10 


5 

10 

10 

5 


5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 


5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 


39. — Labor’s Prayer, by Charles Bradlaugh 5 

40. — Poverty : Its Cause and Cure, by M. G. II 10 

41. — The Value of Biography, by G. J. Holyoake 10 

42. — Science and the Bible Antagonistic, by Charles Watts. . . 10 

43. — The Christian Scheme of Redemption, by Charles Watts. 5 

44. — The Logic of Death, by G. J. Holyoake 10 

45. — The Character of Christ, by Charles Watts 5 

46. — Atheism and the Gloucester Execution, by Clias. Watts. 5 

47. — Poverty : Its Effects on the People, by Chas. Bradlaugh. 5 
Other Iron-Clads are in active preparation. 



The Manna Series. 

Cents. 

1. — Original Manna for “ God’s chosen.” 5 

2. — B. F. Underwood’s Prayer, per dozen 10 

3. — New Life of David, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

4. — Facetiae for Free Thinkers 10 

5. — 200 Questions Without Answers 5 

G. — A Dialogue Between a Christian Missionary and a Chi- 
nese Mandarin 10 

7. — Queries Submitted to the Bench of Bishops by a Weak 

but Zealous Christian 10 

8. — A Search After Heaven and Hell, by Austin Holyoake. . 5 

9. — New Life of Jonah, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

10. — A Few Words about the Devil, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

11. — The New Life of Jacob, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

12. — Daniel the Dreamer, by Austin Holyoake 10 

13. — A Specimen of the Bible : Esther, by Austin Holyoake. . . 10 

14. — The Acts of the Apostles: A Farce, by Austin Holyoake. . . 10 

15. — Ludicrous Aspects of Christianity, by Austin Holyoake. . . 10 

16. — The Twelve Apostles, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

17. — Who Was Jesus Christ ? by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

18. — What Did Jesus Teach ? by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

19. — New Life of Abraham, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

20. — New Life of Moses, by Chas. Bradlaugh 5 

21. — A Secular Prayer, by Austin Holyoake, per dozen 10 

Other numbers of Manna for all sorts of hungry people are in 

preparation. 

Send for Complete Descriptive List, 

CHARLES P. SOMERBY, Publisher, 

ijp Eighth Street, New York. 




V 


Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 










